THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3001 of 2009 Dated:11.08.2009 Between: Sathi Anuradha, W/o.S.P.Reddy. ...Petitioner and Karri Subbi Reddy, S/o.Late Narisi Reddy, And others. ...Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3001 of 2009 ORDER: The second defendant in O.S.No.313 of 2001 filed the instant Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, in I.A.No.519 of 2009 dated 01.05.2009. First respondent herein instituted the suit initially for permanent injunction and subsequently it was amended as suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Second defendant is opposing the suit. At the stage of trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.519 of 2009 praying the Court to decide the issue of the locus standi of the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of first respondent/plaintiff to institute the suit. He contended that the GPA holder who filed the suit had no authorisation to institute the suit and that the issue may be decided as a preliminary issue. Trial Court dismissed the application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Jugraj Singh v Jaswant Singh[1], Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v Indusind Bank Limited[2], Hari Kishan Chela Daya Singh v The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar[3], Dinesh Chand Gupta v Smt.Bitola Devi Gupta[4] and Surender Raj Jaiswal v Vijaya Jaiswal[5] submits that when the question of locus standi of the plaintiff is raised, it should be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the questions like maintainability of a suit, jurisdiction of the Court, the question of bar of suit and/or locus standi to institute a suit, can always be decided as preliminary issues so that much of the Court’s time would not be lost. In this case, however, the situation obtaining is different. Even according to the petitioner the application to decide preliminary issue was filed at the stage of arguments. It is not denied that the issue which the petitioner desired to be decided as a preliminary issue had already been framed as one of the issues in the suit, and therefore, it would be not proper for the trial Court to decide the only issue having kept the suit pending. Even according to the provisions contained in Order XX of CPC, the trial Court is expected to decide all the issues framed and give separate findings with reasons on each and every issue. If now the trial Court decides only the preliminary issue it would not only amount to acting in contravention of provisions of Order XX of CPC and also contrary to the aspect of propriety. Therefore, in its discretion, the trial Court had correctly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The order impugned does not warrant any interference, and it does not suffer from any grave error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.08.2009 vs [1] AIR 1971 SC 761 [2] AIR 2005 SC 439 [3] AIR 1976 P&H 130 [4] AIR 1984 Allahabad 116 [5] 2003 (3) ALT 38