THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.567 of 2011 Date of Order: 04-03-2011 Between: Dr.Y.Radha Krishna Murthy ..Petitioner and 1. Y.Aruna Devi and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.567 of 2011 Oral order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the orders of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada passed in I.A.No.267 of 2010 in O.S.No.409 of 2010, dated 04-02- 2011 whereby the I.A. filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice permitting the petitioner therein to represent on behalf of the 2nd defendant as GPA holder was allowed. Along with the present I.A., the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant also filed I.A.No.268 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction against the plaintiff in which temporary injunction was granted. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned several times. On the last date of hearing, though both the parties were not present the lower court extended the injunction order. Against which C.R.P.No.368 of 2011 was filed before this Court contending that without disposing of I.A.No.267 of 2010, allowing I.A.No.268 of 2010 and granting injunction is an error. In view of the same, this Court disposed of C.R.P.No.368 of 2011 on 11-02-2011 directing the lower Court to dispose both the I.As. i.e., I.A.No.267 of 2010 and I.A.No.268 of 2010 expeditiously preferably within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Since injunction was already granted in I.A.No.268 of 2010, allowing I.A.No.267 of 2010 to represent the 2nd defendant as GPA holder is only formal. In view of the same, the order passed by the lower court in allowing I.A.No.267 of 2010 and granting permission to the petitioner therein to represent as GPA holder of the 2nd defendant do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. It is now represented that the petitioner/plaintiff filed two I.As. along with the suit but the same were not numbered. If that be the case, the lower court is directed to take up the said I.As., if not already returned, and dispose of the same along with I.A.No.268 of 2010. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 04-03-2011 Murthy