HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISITION PETITION No. 1996 OF 2006. DATED 26TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Nukala Chandra Rao …Petitioner and Yelamati Siddayya (died) and ors ….Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISITION PETITION No. 1996 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner herein, who happened to be added as third plaintiff in the suit by the plaintiﬀs 1 and 2, ﬁled this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved over the order dated 9.11.1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, allowing the petition ﬁled by the second plaintiﬀ in I.A.No. 935 of 1999 in OP.No. 19 of 1988 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for removal of his name from the array of plaintiffs. The petitioner herein was appointed as the power of attorney agent to the ﬁrst and second plaintiﬀs to look after the aforesaid suit ﬁled by them against the Government of Andhra Pradesh and others seeking relief of declaration that they are the owners of the plaint schedule property. Later the petitioner herein was added as third plaintiﬀ in the said suit. Thereafter, the suit was decreed on 17.10.1996 declaring that the plaintiﬀs are entitled to compensation amount. Later, the second plaintiﬀ ﬁled the present application to delete the name of the petitioner/third plaintiff from the array of the plaintiffs. The Court below having heard the learned Counsel on either side and taking into various other aspects focused by both sides, came to the conclusion that the petitioner being only the power of attorney agent cannot have any title, right or interest over the claim of the plaintiﬀs 1 and 2 and as per the terms of the power of attorney also, no right or interest is vested in favour of the power of attorney holder/petitioner herein. Holding so, the trial court allowed the petition ﬁled by the second plaintiﬀ for removal of the name of the petitioner from the array of the plaintiffs. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side and perused the material on record, it is to be seen that the petitioner is only a power of attorney holder and he cannot claim any title, right or interest over the plaintiﬀs 1 and 2 nor can he seek relief or remedies in the suit ﬁled by the plaintiﬀs 1 and 2. It is pertinent to note that these are only the separate proceedings. Therefore, if the petitioner is having any vested interest or right over the plaintiﬀs 1 and 2, it is always open for the petitioner to avail such other separate legal remedies available under law. In that view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the Civil Revision Petition. However, during the course of hearing the revision, it is brought to my notice that the petitioner has already ﬁled a comprehensive suit in O.S.No. 104 of 1994 and the same was dismissed. It is further submitted that against the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner preferred an appeal, particulars of which are not brought to the notice of this Court, and the same is pending adjudication. Inasmuch as the petitioner has already availed alternative and eﬃcacious legal remedy, the petitioner has no right or interest to assail the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 26T H AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.