IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH (19TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1672 of 2011 Between: Khaja Waheeduddin Subhani & another … Petitioners And: Abdul Hameed … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1672 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 31.12.2010 in IA No.646 of 2010 in OS No.76 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC seeking leave to file original general power of attorney said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of one Mohd. Abdul Mazid, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction restraining them from alienating the plaint schedule property, which according to him, is a road. The first defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. The written statement is purported to have been filed by first defendant through his general power of attorney holder, M.A. Mazid. According to the first petitioner-first defendant, he executed a registered general power of attorney dated 18.08.2003 in favour of the said M.A. Mazid. It is stated that along with the written statement, Xerox copy of the said general power of attorney was filed. Now the original general power of attorney is sought to be filed through the present application IA No.646 of 2010. The first defendant was impleaded by his name in the suit and not through any general power of attorney holder. Admittedly, before filing the written statement, he has not obtained leave of the court to be represented before the court by general power of attorney holder by filing the original general power of attorney. Without obtaining any such leave, the first defendant has straight away filed his written statement through the alleged general power of attorney holder, that too, without filing the original general power of attorney. The trial court refused to grant leave observing that the document now filed is incomplete in the sense that it does not disclose the identity of the general power of attorney holder. The averment in the affidavit that the original general power of attorney was misplaced and it is recently traced is vague. Even otherwise the question of receiving the general power of attorney does not arise, unless, the leave is granted to the first defendant to be represented by the general power of attorney holder. In the circumstances, refusal to grant leave to receive the original general power of attorney by the trial Court does not call for any interference. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 19.07.2011 bss