ORDER Heard Sri Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Purnachandra Rao, the learned counsel representing the fourth respondent. 2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 22-12-2005 and inasmuch as respondent No.4 was represented by counsel and respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 were un-served, the petitioner was permitted to take out personal notice and file proof of service. Proof of service is filed. 3. Sri Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the application was tiled under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice read with Order VII Rule 14(3) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to permit the Foreman and Director of the plaintiff company to act as representative of the said company to prosecute the suit. The learned counsel would submit that even if it is an irregularity in presentation of the plaint, the same is a curable irregularity and hence in the light of the reasons explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the learned judge instead of allowing application had erroneously dismissed the said application. 4. Per contra Sri Purnachandra Rao, the learned counsel representing the fourth respondent had pointed out that already an issue "whether the person who filed the suit is Foreman of the plaintiff company?" had been settled and hence this aspect may be decided at the appropriate stage and this question may be left open to be decided at the time of disposal of the suit. 5. Heard the counsel. 6. The petitioner as plaintiff filed the present application I.A.No.626 of 2005 in O.S.No.34 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal praying for the relief to permit the Foreman and Director to act as representative of the plaintiff company for due conduct of the suit in the interest of the justice and to pass suitable orders. The petitioner plaintiff is M/s. Nethra Chits (P) Limited, Hanamakonda, represented by its Foreman. The petitioner plaintiff is M/s. Nethra Chits (P) Limited, Hanamakonda, represented by its Foreman. 7.ltis stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that in pursuance of the resolution passed in the Board of Directors Meeting of the company aforesaid held on 13-4-1993, Sri K. Ram Reddy was empowered to act as Foreman and Representative of the plaintiff company and further more specifically authorized and appointed as such in such a capacity to prosecute and conduct all suits and complaints which may be filed by or against the company from time to time. The said Ram Reddy as deponent has sworn to the said affidavit and had narrated certain other facts also in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The said application was dismissed by the learned Judge recording certain reasons at Paras 5,6,7, and 8. The learned Judge in fact at Para 4 framed the following point for consideration. "Whether the Foreman and Director of the petitioner-plaintiff can be permitted to act as representative of plaintiff company to conduct the suit or not?" It was also recorded by the learned Judge at Para 6 that an issue was framed "whether the person who filed the suit is Foreman of plaintiff company?" The stage of the suit and other particulars also had been discussed in the impugned order. 8. Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice dealing with party appearing by agent reads as hereunder: "Party appearing by Agent:- (1) When a party appears by any agent, other than an Advocate, the agent shall, before making or doing any appearance, application, or act, in or to the Court, file in the Court the power of attorney, or written authority, thereunto authorizing him or a properly authenticated copy there of together with an affidavit that the said authority is still subsisting, or, in the case of an agent carrying on a trade or business on behalf of a party, without a written authority, an affidavit stating the residence of his principal, the trade of business carried on by the agent on his behalf and the connection of the same with the subject-matter of the suit, and that no other agent is expressly authorized to make or do such appearance, application, or act. (2) The judge may thereupon record in writing that the agent is permitted to appear and act on behalf of the party; and unless and until the said permission is granted, no appearance, application, or act, of the agent shall be recognized by the Court. " 9. In Md. Munawar Hussain v. Usha Kiran Chit Funds1, while dealing with Rule 32 of the Rules aforesaid, this Court held that where the suit was filed by agent of the plaintiff, he has necessarily to file an affidavit praying permission to file the suit and the court should proceed with the suit only after giving such permission. It was further observed that in the instant case, the said question was decided as a preliminary issue and after deciding it in favour of the plaintiff the court proceeded to decide the other issues and it was further observed that though the procedure is irregular, it does not go to the root of the case and the judgment cannot be quashed on that ground. 10. The obtaining of permission to present the plaint at best can be said to be curable irregularity. Having detected the mistake committed bona fide, the present application was thought of. It appears the said objection was taken in the written statement and issue was framed "whether the person who filed the suit is Foreman of plaintiff company?" It appears that the application was filed for limited purpose of curing or rectifying the defect in presentation ~f the plaint. The presentation of the plaint was no doubt made without obtaining leave of the court. In the light of the fact that the same being curable defect inasmuch as application was moved specifying sufficient reasons, it can be taken that the defect in the presentation of the plaint had been cured and accordingly the said defect is hereby rectified. However, if any other factual controversies are there in relation to the issue which had been already settled "whether the person who filed the suit is Foreman of plaintiff company?" the said issue can be decided on the evidence which may be adduced by both the parties, if the parties choose to let in evidence in relation thereto. However, if any other factual controversies are there in relation to the issue which had been already settled "whether the person who filed the suit is Foreman of plaintiff company?" the said issue can be decided on the evidence which may be adduced by both the parties, if the parties choose to let in evidence in relation thereto. If need be, the parties be given liberty to adduce further evidence also on the said issue especially in the light of the fact that certain factual controversies are involved even to decide the said issue in question. 11. With the above observation, the impugned order is accordingly modified and C.R.P. is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.