HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3419 OF 2010 DATE:09-09-2010 BETWEEN Bokka Nagamani @ Mani …Petitioner AND Kudupudi Venkata Lakshmi @ Lakshmi & others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3419 OF 2010 ORDER: Defendant No.8 in the suit filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari, dated 26.7.2010 passed in I.A.No.479 of 2010 in O.S.No.94 of 1988. The suit is an old one filed in the year 1988 for declaration of title of the first plaintiff and to grant permanent injunction. Revision petitioner is the 8th defendant in the suit and that the suit is coming up for her evidence. At that stage, she filed the impugned application under Rule 32(2) of Civil Rules of Practice and under Section 151 C.P.C. to permit her sister-Smt.Katta Hemalakshmi to represent her in the suit and to depose on her behalf. Along with the petition, the petitioner filed a certificate stated to be issued by Dr.Krishna prasad, dated 29.6.2010 to the effect that she is under his treatment and requires bed-rest for ten days. Apart from the said medical certificate, she filed a copy of G.P.A. executed by her and registered with the Sub-Registrar on the even date i.e. on 29.6.2010. The lower Court rightly dismissed the impugned application on the ground that when the petitioner was able to appear before the Sub-Registrar and execute a document on 29.6.2010, her obtaining a medical certificate from the doctor on the even date to the effect that she requires bed-rest cannot be believed. Further under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice, it is mandatory on the part of the petitioner to file an affidavit stating that the authority under the said G.P.A. is still subsisting, and that the recitals in the affidavit of the petitioner are not in accordance with Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice. Since the petitioner has not been examined, the examination of G.P.A. holder on her behalf does not arise at that stage. Further in the medical certificate issued by the doctor there was only an advice to the petitioner to take ten days bed-rest. She is aged about 44 years and is not suffering from any incurable ailments completely disabling her to appear before the Court. In the circumstance, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the impugned application does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The Revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 09, 2010 Tsr.