IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2577 of 2011 Between: Puli Venkatesham & another … Petitioners And: Katakam Rajalingu & 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2577 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 15.06.2011 in IA No.637 of 2011 in OS No.21 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, wherein said application filed by the respondents herein-plaintiffs, under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice, seeking permission to represent first plaintiff by the general power of attorney, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents-plaintiffs, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed suit against the petitioners herein for permanent injunction. The petitioners filed written statement, contesting the suit. It is stated that the trial of the suit also commenced and the 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and 3rd plaintiff was examined as PW.2. The first plaintiff filed chief affidavit in lieu of his evidence as PW.3 and he is yet to be cross- examined. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed IA No.637 of 2011 seeking permission that the first plaintiff is to be represented by the 3rd plaintiff as G.P.A. holder on the ground that the first plaintiff is aged person. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that if the first plaintiff is permitted to be represented by GPA holder-3rd plaintiff, the defendants would be losing opportunity of cross examining the first plaintiff. The impugned order does not disclose whether the plaintiffs intend to record the evidence of PW.3 or the chief affidavit is to be eschewed from consideration. In the of event of first plaintiff is permitted to be represented by the 3rd plaintiff as GPA holder, the defendants would be losing opportunity of cross-examining PW.3-first plaintiff, unless his evidence in lieu of chief affidavit is to be eschewed. 4. Under those circumstances, it is considered that the impugned order needs to be modified to the effect that the first plaintiff whose chief affidavit is filed as PW.3 shall be subjected to cross-examination before he may be permitted to be represented by GPA holder-3rd plaintiff. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.09.2011 bss