THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2995 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 09-06-2010, passed in I.A.No.453 of 2010 in O.S.No.957 of 2005 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.453 of 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to come on record as 9th defendant in the suit, on the ground that he is authorized General Power of Attorney of one Avula Venkatarathnam, who had executed a registered General Power of Attorney- cum-Agreement of Sale, dated 09-05-2008 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0-33 cents in Sy.No.335/7 situated at Thummalagunta Group, Chiguruvada Uttarapu Kandriga village, Tirupati rural mandal, which is part of the suit schedule property. The said Avula Venkata Rathnam purchased the said property from Shaik Ismail, the 1st defendant in the suit, under a registered sale deed, dated 26-10-2007. Therefore, he is proper and necessary party to the suit. The court below vide its order, dated 09-06-2010 dismissed the said application on the ground that the vendor of the petitioner’s principal i.e., 1st defendant was already party to the suit and the petitioner is only G.P.A. holder of the purchaser of the part of the suit schedule property. The rights of the petitioner and his principal are subject to the rights of the 1st defendant and they cannot make a separate defence or written statement other than their vendor and since the 1st defendant is contesting the suit and the matter is coming up for arguments, the petitioner is not necessary and proper party to the suit. Further, the petitioner has not followed Rule 32 of the A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular orders, 1990, by filing an affidavit that the General Power of Attorney is still subsisting. Under Rule 32 of the A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular orders, 1990, party appearing as an agent has to file copy of power of Attorney together with an affidavit that the said authority is still subsisting. Thereafter, after recording reasons, it is for the court to permit an agent to appear on behalf of the party and unless and until the said permission is granted, no appearance application shall be recognized by the court. Admittedly, in the instant case, Rule 32 of the A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular orders, 1990, has not been complied with. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below, after hearing both sides, had rightly dismissed the said application. Hence, I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order, so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application before the court below. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 13-08-2010 Prv