IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2481 of 2008 BETWEEN Masoosdul Hassan. ... PETITIONER AND Rasheedul Hassan and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. C.V. BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. SRINIVAS EMANI The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner, who acted as power of attorney holder for first respondent herein, has filed a suit being O.S.No.1324 of 2000 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the said suit, he obtained ex parte decree on 30.08.2001 for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits against respondent No.2. When the petitioner filed E.P.No.114 of 2001 for execution of the said decreed, the first respondent, who is the principal as well as the brother of the petitioner sought impleadment and filed an application being E.A.No.12 of 2002 under Section 47(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, claiming that the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner having since served it’s purpose was cancelled and that, as principal, he is not wiling to execute the decree. Though the said claim of the first respondent was contested, the trial Court accepted the case of the claim petitioner in view of Exs.P1 to P10 marked on behalf of the first respondent and allowed the claim petition and dismissed the EP under the impugned order dated 28.10.2002. The said order is questioned in this revision petition. 2. Heard Mr. C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for the first respondent. 3. The fact that the first respondent is the principal is not in dispute and that power of attorney given by him to the petitioner herein was, admittedly, withdrawn by him. It is also not in dispute that the said suit as well as the execution petition was filed by the petitioner only in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the first respondent. Thus, when the principal himself is claiming adjustment of the decree and is not pressing for execution, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said action. The order of the Court below, therefore, cannot be faulted on any ground. In addition thereto, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that subsequently the first respondent has filed a suit for accounts against the petitioner and the said suit, on contest, was decreed and has attained finality. In view of the subsequent event also the impugned order does not deserve any interference. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 9, 2011 DSK