IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3799 of 2009 Between: S. Nazeer Ahmed, S/o. Masoom Miah ..... PETITIONER AND A. Venkata Subbamma, W/o. late A.S.R. Gupta and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3799 of 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 17.08.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period. 2. The civil revision petition is filed against the order made in I.A.No.1420 of 2008 in O.S.No.313 of 2007, dated 03.07.2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 3. The learned Judge at paragraph No.10 observed as hereunder: “As the counsel for the respondent cited a decision reported in A.L.T. 2006 (3), at Page 66, wherein the question with regard to leave to file a document under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. has been decided but this decision has no direct baring on the present facts of the case. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned above has directly applicable to the present facts of this case. In this case admittedly the second petitioner/second plaintiff did not obtain permission from the court at the time of institution of the suit to represent the third plaintiff/petitioner as his Agent. Subsequently, it was found that such permission has not been obtained by the subsequent Advocate who is presently appearing for the petitioners. So it is the duty of the then Advocate to tile an application under Order 32 Cr.P.C. and obtained permission but due to the mistake committed by the then Advocate, the petitioners cannot be penalized. Therefore, in these circumstances, even though the permission is not obtained, such a permission can be granted by this court as per the principal laid down in the above said decision. The defect occurred in not obtaining permission is a curable defect and that defect can be cured. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the permission to represent the third plaintiff. This point is answered accordingly.” 4. In fact, the learned Judge relied on certain other decisions also and recorded reasons in detail, after formulating the points for consideration at paragraph No.5. 5. After thoroughly going through the reasons recorded at paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J January 25, 2010. MD