THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1913 and 2917 of 2011 November 04, 2011 Between: Appukonda Apparao, S/o.late Veeraswamy ... Petitioner And Dendukuri Saraswathi, W/o.Krishnam Raju And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1913 and 2917 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: As both the revision petitions filed by the second defendant in the suit under Article 227 of the Constitution arise out of common order of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada dated 11.4.2011 in I.A.Nos.176 and 340 of 2011, it is necessary to dispose of both the matters by the common order. The first respondent through her son Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder filed the suit being O.S.No.51 of 2005. It is for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.10.2004. The suit was preceded by a notice demanding execution of sale deed. During the trial, the son as P.W.1 deposed that though the suit was filed through SPA holder, the deed of SPA was not notarized and that the suit notice was issued by himself. This emboldened the petitioner to file I.A.No.176 of 2011 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to dismiss the suit in view of the admissions made by the P.W.1. The plaintiff then filed I.A.No.340 of 2011 under Rule 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (the Civil Rules) seeking permission to be represented by SPA. The Court below while dismissing I.A.No.176 of 2011 allowed I.A. No.340 of 2011 and by the common order disposed of both the applications. In these civil revision petitions the Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the suit itself was not properly instituted by the plaintiff without permission of the Court under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules the defect cannot be cured and, therefore, the Court below ought to have dismissed the suit giving weight to the admissions made by the P.W.1 as per the Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Insofar as the suits filed by or through GPA holders and/or SPA holders Rule 32 of the Civil Rules requires a party to file an application and seek permission to sue through GPA/SPA holder. But when the plaint is signed and verified by the GPA and presented to the Court along with document no permission is required under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules. Secondly if the suit is presented without seeking permission under Rule 32 the same can be cured and Rule 32 being a directive provision the plaintiff cannot be non-suited only on that ground. It is also settled that even if the GPA/SPA holder is not authorized to file, at the time of filing, the suit, it can still be ratified by the principal (Komiresetti Peddamma v Desu Gurunadharao[1] and Janab Syed Kazim Sahab v Janab Sayeed Bakaram Sahab[2]). The trial Court applied these principles and came to the conclusion that the conduct of the plaintiff in ratifying earlier SPA in favour of her son cures the defect if any and that the suit cannot be summarily dismissed when there are serious rival contentions involved in the case. This finding of the trial Court is unassailable. The civil revision petitions are misconceived and are, accordingly, dismissed. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) November 04, 2011 YS [1] 1973 (2) APLJ 112 [2] 1990 (1) An.WR 256