ANDHRA BANK Vs. P.MADHAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 15.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.213 of 2010 in O.S.No.107 of 2008.

(2.) The facts in issue are as under:

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is stated that the plaintiff is the cousin of the proposed parties and with an ulterior motive she filed the suit without impleading them as defendants. It is stated that one Syed Nasarullah, who is the power of attorney agent of proposed parties and who has no and who has no right over the suit property was intentionally shown as defendant leaving behind the proposed parties. It is stated that the petitioners in I.A. are legal representatives of late Syed Kalesha Masthan Saheb and that they have got 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. It is further stated that suit schedule property was joint property of the father of the plaintiff ie. Syed Khadarvali Saheb, their father Syed Kalesha Masthan Saheb and late Syed Khader and a joint patta was issued in their name as they are entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. A counter came to be filed opposing the petition contending that on behalf of the proposed parties their general power of attorney is shown as a defendant and it is incorrect to state that he is not a necessary party. It is stated that when the power of attorney is on record, the proposed parties are not having locus standi to file the petition without canceling the power of attorney and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition. After allowing both the parties to lead the evidence the trial Court allowed the petition. Challenging the same the present Civil Revision petition is filed.