THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3383 of 2010 27.8.2010 Between: Smt.Katta Venkata Subbamma, W/o.Nageswara Rao …Petitioner and Sanagana Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.Lakshminarayana …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3383 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.135 of 2009, which was initially filed on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale. The petitioner engaged M/s.Mangaiah and Sobhan Babu as her Counsel. The written statement was filed inter alia denying execution of suit agreement and pleading that it was forged one. In December 2008, the suit stood transferred from Kovvur Court to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddygudem. During the trial, P.W.1 was examined. He was cross-examined by the Counsel for defendant. Be it noted, petitioner engaged this time M/s.T.S.N.Murthy and Garsikuti Rambabu, as her Counsel. After conducting cross- examination of P.W.1, petitioner filed I.A.No.187 of 2010 purportedly under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement. The same was opposed. By impugned order dated 03.7.2010, the Court below dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s advocates filed written statement without taking instructions and, therefore, it has become necessary for her to file additional written statement. This plea is stated only for the purpose of rejecting the same. If the petitioner was very much aware that written statement filed on her behalf contains certain factual discrepancies, she should have made attempts to file additional written statement even before commencement of trial and even before she conducted corss- examination of P.W.1. She did not explain delay as to why additional written statement is filed after conducting cross-examination of P.W.1. This only shows that she is trying to fill up the lacunae in the earlier written statement by throwing the blame on earlier Counsel. Secondly, unless otherwise is proved, there is a presumption that the Counsel engaged by a party to the proceedings will always act in accordance with the instructions. Indeed, when once an advocate is engaged by the party to a proceedings, such advocate has authority not only to file pleadings but also to argue and enter into compromise, which might arise in suit in incidental as well as supplemental proceedings. Therefore the plea of petitioner cannot be accepted. The Court below has considered the application by exercising proper discretion and the same does not warrant any interference. The impugned order does not suffer any error, which cannot be corrected by appellate authority as contemplated under Section 105(1) of CPC. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) August 27, 2010. YS