ORDER : (K. LAKSHMAN, J.) Heard Mr. L. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. J. Srinadh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. The petitioner herein filed the present revision challenging the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar in I.A. No.1198 of 2024 in I.A. No.1129 of 2024 in O.S. No.43 of 2009. 3. The petitioner herein is plaintiff No.1, while respondent No.4 herein is transposed as plaintiff No.2 from defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S. No.43 of 2009. In the suit, there are 204 defendants. However, in the petition filed in I.A. No.1198 of 2024, defendant Nos.2 to 4 shown defendant Nos.5 to 204 as not necessary parties, whereas the petitioner herein filed the present revision showing defendant Nos.2 to 4 as respondent Nos.1 to 3 and plaintiff No.2 as respondent No.5 only, and neither shown defendant Nos.5 to 204 as parties to the present revision, nor as not necessary parties. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status and rank in the main suit. 5. Plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of Plaintiff No.2. Initially, she filed the suit against plaintiff No.2 and others seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. Later, her father - defendant No.1 was transposed as plaintiff No.2 in the said suit vide orders dated 21.07.2011 in I.A. No.54 of 2011 and amendment of plaint had also taken place. Thus, the suit filed by them against the defendants is for partition and separate possession of 5/6 th share each out of 15/56 th share in respect of plaint Schedule - A to G Properties. Plaintiff No.1 filed the said suit through her Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. P. Viplav Kumar. 6. Thus, the suit filed by them against the defendants is for partition and separate possession of 5/6 th share each out of 15/56 th share in respect of plaint Schedule - A to G Properties. Plaintiff No.1 filed the said suit through her Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. P. Viplav Kumar. 6. During the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff No.1 represented by her Power of Attorney Holder, filed an Interlocutory Application under Order - XXIII, Rule - 1 read with 151 of CPC , vide I.A. No.1129 of 2024, to grant leave/permission for withdrawal of claim in respect of surplus lands in Survey Nos.438, 439, 442, 443, 549, 550, 581 and 584, admeasuring Acs.27.91 cents, situated at Nagnur Village of Karimnagar Revenue Mandal and District insofar as item Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 18, 23 and 24 of plaint Schedule - ‘A’ properties are concerned as the same are in possession and custody of Government as admitted by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the affidavit filed in W.P. No.30182 of 2014. 7. While so, defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed an Interlocutory Application under Section - 151 of CPC , vide I.A. No.1198 of 2024, seeking to return the petition filed by plaintiff No.1 under Order - XXIII, Rule - 1 of CPC as not maintainable as it was filed by incompetent person without valid GPA and without following the procedure laid down under Rules - 32 and 33 of Civil Rules of Practice on the following grounds: i) The suit was filed by plaintiff No.1 through GPA holder without following the procedure. ii) The GPA document is created as it was not ascertained by plaintiff No.1 by filing her personal affidavit before the trial Court. iii) Plaintiff No.1 did not seek permission of the trial Court to represent the suit proceedings through GPA. iv) Therefore, filing the petition under Order - XXIII, Rule -1 of CPC is not maintainable. v) The alleged GPA Holder, Mr. P.Viplav Kumar did not have any valid GPA. vi) Mr. Ramesh Sagar, Advocate, who filed Vakalat on behalf of plaintiff No.2 is none other than co-brother of plaintiff No.2. vii) The alleged GPA Holder, Mr. Viplav Kumar is none other than the own son-in-law of earlier counsel of plaintiff No.2. viii) In view of family disputes and strained relations, Mr. P.Viplav Kumar did not have any valid GPA. vi) Mr. Ramesh Sagar, Advocate, who filed Vakalat on behalf of plaintiff No.2 is none other than co-brother of plaintiff No.2. vii) The alleged GPA Holder, Mr. Viplav Kumar is none other than the own son-in-law of earlier counsel of plaintiff No.2. viii) In view of family disputes and strained relations, Mr. Ramesh Sagar, Advocate, withdrew his Vakalat, due to which, it raises a cloud on validity of GPA. 8. The Power of Attorney Holder of Plaintiff No.1 filed counter affidavit opposing the said application by contending as follows: i) The GPA is still subsisting and is in force and operation till conclusion of suit proceedings. ii) DefendantNos.2 to 4 have no locus to raise an objection regarding legality and validity of GPA executed by plaintiff No.1 in his favour for the reason that the said objection was not raised during the course of his cross-examination or at the earliest point of time. iii) Plaintiff No.1 has given specific power to him to sign pleadings and other relevant affidavits on her behalf under his signature. iv) The relationship mentioned in the affidavit has no relevancy in regard to the issue raised in the application for withdrawal of part of suit claim. v) The present application is filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 with an intention to get over the plea taken by him in I.A. No.1129 of 2024 filed under Order - XXIII, Rule - 1 of CPC . vi) The proper person to object for him to conduct and prosecute the suit proceedings is plaintiff No.1, who has executed GPA bearing document No.195 of 2009 on 01.08.2009 to present the plaint under his signatures and give evidence. Instigated by plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.1 executed document revoking power of attorney signed on 25.04.2022 and attested by Notary Public on 27.04.2022 in USA and sent him a copy of it while sending a copy to the former counsel for plaintiff No.1. vii) Therefore, he got issued a legal notice to plaintiff No.1 through his Advocate on 08.05.2022 in illegally cancelling the GPA and also claimed damages for Rs.500 lakhs. viii) Thus, his GPA is protected under Section - 202 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 . 9. vii) Therefore, he got issued a legal notice to plaintiff No.1 through his Advocate on 08.05.2022 in illegally cancelling the GPA and also claimed damages for Rs.500 lakhs. viii) Thus, his GPA is protected under Section - 202 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 . 9. After hearing both sides, vide order dated 21.01.2025, learned trial Court allowed the I.A. No.1198 of 2024 returning the petition filed by plaintiff No.1 vide I.A. No.1129 of 2024 by granting liberty to plaintiff No.1 to file similar application on her own or through proper GPA holding: i) Mr. P. Viplav Kumar filed the application under Order -XXIII, Rule - 1 of CPC on behalf of plaintiff No.1. ii) It is settled proposition of law that when a suit is filed by an Agent on behalf of Principal, it is the duty of such an Agent to furnish the proof of authority given by the Principal to him to prosecute the proceedings. Unless the person who is acting on behalf of the Principal proves his authority to prosecute, he cannot be permitted to file suit or contest the proceedings. iii) According to the GPA Holder, the GPA is in existence, but in the counter he has mentioned that plaintiff No.1 revoked the power of attorney vide document dated 25.04.2022. The said document is not filed before the trial Court either by plaintiff No.1 or by any of the party to the suit. 10. Challenging the said impugned order, the Power of Attorney Holder filed the present revision on the following grounds: i) The impugned order is ultra-vires of the Chapter X of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and contrary to the provisions of Sections - 182 to 238 of Contract Act. ii) The alleged deed of revocation of GPA executed in the USA was notarized by a Notary Public in USA. It was neither validated nor registered under Section - 26 of the Indian Registration Act and, thus, it has no value and will not invalidate the GPA executed in favour of Power of Attorney Holder. iii) The appointment of GPA and revocation of it is a matter between the Principal and Agent. iv) Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have no legal right to ask for inquiring into the legality and validity of GPA by filing application under Rules - 32 and 33 of CRP. iii) The appointment of GPA and revocation of it is a matter between the Principal and Agent. iv) Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have no legal right to ask for inquiring into the legality and validity of GPA by filing application under Rules - 32 and 33 of CRP. v) Plaintiff No.1 was in Hanamkonda Town for more than four (04) months after she purportedly revoked the GPA. She did not take any step to get the cancellation of GPA registered as per law and procedure. 11. Whereas, Mr. Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. J. Srinadh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, would submit that plaintiff No.1 has already cancelled the power of attorney bearing document No.195 of 2009 executed by her appointing Mr. P. Viplav Kumar, as Power of Attorney on 25.04.2022 itself. He is aware of the said fact. Even in the counter filed by him in I.A. No.1198 of 2024, he has admitted the said fact. Therefore, he cannot represent plaintiff No.1 i.e., Mrs. Guduru Veera Nishitha as power of attorney holder. Validity of the said cancellation cannot be considered in the present case. If the power of attorney holder has any grievance with regard to the said cancellation, he has to initiate separate proceedings. Thus, power of attorney holder cannot represent the Principal i.e., plaintiff No.1. On consideration of the said aspects, vide order dated 21.01.2025 in I.A. No.1198 of 2024 in I.A. No.1129 of 2024 in O.S. No.43 of 2009, the trial Court allowed the said application and the petition filed under Order - XXIII, Rule - 1 of CPC vide I.A. No.1129 of 2024 filed Mr. P. Viplav Kumar as her Power of Attorney Holder is liable to be returned. There is no error in it. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT 12. The aforesaid rival submissions and perusal of record would reveal that Mrs. Guduru Veera Nishitha, plaintiff No.1 had executed a registered Power of Attorney bearing document No.195 of 2009 dated 01.08.2009 in favour of Mr. P. Viplav Kumar, to do certain acts on her behalf including filing of suit for partition etc. On the strength of the said GPA representing the Principal, he has filed O.S. No.43 of 2009 seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedules ‘A’ to ‘D’ properties. During pendency of the said suit, Mr. P. Viplav Kumar, to do certain acts on her behalf including filing of suit for partition etc. On the strength of the said GPA representing the Principal, he has filed O.S. No.43 of 2009 seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedules ‘A’ to ‘D’ properties. During pendency of the said suit, Mr. P. Viplav Kumar representing plaintiff N.1 as her Power of Attorney Holder, filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No.1129 of 2024 under Order - XXIII, Rule - 1 read with 151 of CPC to grant leave/permission for withdrawal of claim in respect of surplus lands in Survey Nos.438, 439, 442, 443, 549, 550, 581 and 584, admeasuring Acs.27.91 cents, situated at Nagnur Village of Karimnagar Revenue Mandal and District i.e., item Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 18, 23 and 24 of plaint Schedule - ‘A’ properties. The said application is pending. 13. During pendency of the said application, defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed I.A. No.1198 of 2024 under Section - 151 of CPC , to return I.A. No.1129 of 2024 on the ground that plaintiff No.1 has already cancelled the aforesaid power of attorney executed in favour of Mr. P.Viplav Kumar by way of execution of cancellation of power of attorney on 25.04.2022. It is relevant to note that in the counter filed in the said application, the power of attorney holder of plaintiff No.1 admitted about the cancellation of power of attorney on 25.04.2022. According to him, the said cancellation is not in accordance with law. Therefore, he can continue as power of attorney holder of plaintiff No.1. 14. In the light of the above discussion, it is relevant to note that Section - 182 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines ‘Agent’ and ‘Principal’ and it says that an “agent” is a person employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the “principal”. 15. Section - 201 of the Contract Act describes various modes of termination of agency and the same is extracted as under: “ 201. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the “principal”. 15. Section - 201 of the Contract Act describes various modes of termination of agency and the same is extracted as under: “ 201. Termination of agency .—An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority; or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors.” 16. Section - 203 deals with revocation by Principal and the same is extracted as under: “ 203.When principal may revoke agent’s authority .— The principal may, save as is otherwise provided by the last preceding section, revoke the authority given to his agent at any time before the authority has been exercised so as to bind the principal.” 17. It is relevant to note that Rule - 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with ‘party appearing by Agent, and Rule - 33 deals with ‘signing of verification by Agent, and the same are extracted as under: “ 32. Party appearing by Agent :- a. When a party appears by any agent, other than an advocate, the agent shall, before making of or doing any appearance, application, or act, in or to the court, file in court the power of attorney, or written authority, thereunto authorizing him or a properly authenticated copy thereof together with an affidavit that the said authority still subsisting, or, in the case of 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 or business carried on by the agent on his behalf and principal, the trade or 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 authorised to make or do such appearance, application, or act. b. 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.” “ 33. Signing of verification by Agent :- If any proceedings, which under any provision of law or these rules, is required to be signed or verified by a party, is signed or verified by any person on his behalf, a written authority in this behalf signed by the party shall be filed in court, together with an affidavit verifying the signature of the party, and stating the reason of his inability to sign or verify the proceedings and standing the means of knowledge or the facts set out in the proceeding of the person signing or verifying the same and that such person is a recognized agent of the party as defined by order III Rule 2 of the Code and is duly authorized and competent so to do.” 18. Order - III, Rules - 1 and 2 of CPC deals with ‘recognized Agents and Pleaders and the same are extracted hereunder: ORDER - III RECOGNIZED AGENTS AND PLEADERS 1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader . - Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be on his behalf: Provide that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person. 2. Recognized agent. 2. Recognized agent. - The recognized agent of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are- (a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties; (b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts.” 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the provisions of law, the only point that falls for consideration before this Court is: Whether Mr. P. Viplav Kumar, Power of Attorney Holder of plaintiff No.1 i.e., Ms. Guduru Veera Nishitha, can represent his Principal despite cancellation of registered Power of Attorney bearing document No.195 of 2009, dated 01.08.2009, by way of executing cancellation deed dated 25.04.2022? 20. The procedure contemplated under Rules - 32 and 33 of the Civil Rules of Practice is not mandatory. It is a curable defect. It is also settled law that any such revocation of GPA would come into force only from the date of such revocation and all the acts and deeds committed by the Agent on behalf of and for the Principal prior to date of revocation of GPA would continue to be binding on the Principal, as if the said documents were executed by the Principal, however, subject to proof of such acts having been done by attorney on behalf of the Principal subject to compliance of the conditions if any imposed under the said GPA, and such acts are done in terms of the GPA. 21. In the present case, plaintiff No.1 had executed the aforesaid GPA bearing document No.195 of 2009 on 01.08.2009. She has cancelled the said GPA by way of execution of cancellation of power of attorney dated 25.04.2022. Mr. P. Viplav Kumar, Power of Attorney Holder is aware of the said fact. He has admitted the same in the counter filed by him in I.A. No.1198 of 2024. According to him, he got issued legal notice on 08.05.2022 to the Principal i.e., plaintiff No.1 questioning the said cancellation and sought for damages. Mr. P. Viplav Kumar, Power of Attorney Holder is aware of the said fact. He has admitted the same in the counter filed by him in I.A. No.1198 of 2024. According to him, he got issued legal notice on 08.05.2022 to the Principal i.e., plaintiff No.1 questioning the said cancellation and sought for damages. Even then, he has filed I.A. No.1129 of 2024 on 25.11.2024 representing plaintiff No.1 as her Attorney Holder seeking leave/permission for withdrawal of claim in respect of surplus land in the aforesaid survey numbers. The said IA is pending. Thereafter, defendant Nos.2 to 4 have filed I.A. No.1198 of 2024 under Section - 151 of CPC to return I.A. No.1129 of 2024. Thus, admittedly, the GPA executed by plaintiff No.1 vide document bearing No.195 of 2009 on 01.08.2009 was cancelled by plaintiff No.1 by way of executing cancellation of power of attorney on 25.04.2022. Therefore, power of attorney holder cannot represent the Principal. If there is any dispute with regard to cancellation of the said registered GPA bearing document No.195 of 2009 dated 01.08.2009, he has to take steps separately. He cannot contend that he can continue to represent his Principal. 22. He has already sent a legal notice claiming damages from his Principal. The said issue i.e., issuance of legal notice and claiming damages by the Power of Attorney Holder from plaintiff No.1 is nothing to do with the present proceedings. Once the power of attorney executed by his Principal is cancelled, he cannot represent the Principal. On coming to know about the said cancellation, it is his duty to inform the trial Court about the cancellation of power of attorney. Instead bringing it to the notice of trial Court, he continued to represent his Principal and filed I.A. No.1129 of 2024 under Order - XXIII, Rule - 1 of CPC seeking leave/permission to withdraw claim in respect of surplus land in the aforesaid survey numbers. The same is impermissible. On consideration of the said facts only, vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.1198 of 2024 returning I.A. No.1129 of 2024. However, the trial Court granted liberty to plaintiff No.1 to file similar application on her own or through proper GPA. 23. Mr. The same is impermissible. On consideration of the said facts only, vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.1198 of 2024 returning I.A. No.1129 of 2024. However, the trial Court granted liberty to plaintiff No.1 to file similar application on her own or through proper GPA. 23. Mr. L. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner herein has placed reliance on the principle laid down in Natubhai Chotbhai Patel v. Patnam Shakunthala , [ 2014 (4) ALD 553 ] , more particularly paragraph No.15, which is extracted as under: “15. A party generally represented by an Advocate. This provision enables an agent to represent the party. This provision has been introduced to discourage the parties to appoint the agents to represent them in the Courts than the legal practitioners. The wording "when a party appears by any agent other than an Advocate" used in Rule 32 clearly indicates that the authorization is for all purposes including the filing of the pleadings, examination of the witnesses, marking of the documents and advancing of the arguments, which is generally expected to be performed by an Advocate who is a legal expert in the field. If an agent represents the party, he may not know the implications and complications of the issues involved in the matter, thereby it is likely to cause injustice to the party. If the party prepares to take the risk of authorizing an agent, it is an indication that the party is prepared to reap the consequences by appointing an agent. In order to make sure that the party authorized the agent to represent him in the matter, an affidavit is necessary. But in cases of authorizing an agent to sign the pleadings while authorizing a legal practitioner to appear on his behalf, it is sufficient if the court is satisfied that he was authorized to sign and in such a case, the filing of an affidavit is not mandatory, therefore, the defect can be cured at a later stage also by convincing the court that the agent was duly authorized by the respective party in that matter. But if an agent is authorized to undertake the signing of pleadings, adducing of evidence and advancing of arguments, the agent shall be permitted in writing and the party has to file an affidavit that he has duly authorized the agent to represent him instead of an Advocate. But if an agent is authorized to undertake the signing of pleadings, adducing of evidence and advancing of arguments, the agent shall be permitted in writing and the party has to file an affidavit that he has duly authorized the agent to represent him instead of an Advocate. In case of a party executing a General Power of Attorney in favour of another person, the General Power of Attorney holder also cannot be permitted to represent the party in the suit for all purposes namely to sign the pleadings, to adduce evidence and to advance arguments unless an affidavit is filed by the party affirming that he has authorized his General Power of Attorney holder to represent his case for the above purposes. But for mere signing of the pleadings on behalf of the party duly represented by an Advocate, permission from the court is not necessary by way of filing an affidavit to that effect. It is sufficient if the court is satisfied that the agent or power of attorney holder is duly authorized to sign the pleadings, after perusal of such authorization, which was filed along with the pleadings.” 24. In the present case, the Principal has cancelled the power of attorney executed by her in favour of Mr. P. Viplav Kumar. He is aware of the said fact. He has admitted the same in the counter filed by him in I.A. No.1198 of 2024. Even then, he has filed I.A. No.1129 of 2024 after cancellation of power of attorney executed in his favour. Therefore, the facts in the aforesaid decision are different to the facts of the present case. 25. As discussed above, filing I.A. No.1129 of 2024 by Mr. Viplav Kumar, Power of Attorney Holder of Plaintiff No.1 after cancellation of power of attorney and having knowledge of the same is contrary to the procedure laid down under Civil Rules of Practice and also the Contract Act. He cannot represent his Principal after cancellation of power of attorney. 26. On consideration of the said facts, vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025, learned trial Court allowed I.A. No.1198 of 2024 returning I.A. No.1129 of 2024. It is a reasoned order and well- founded and there is no error, much less jurisdictional error in the said order. The petitioner failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. 26. On consideration of the said facts, vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025, learned trial Court allowed I.A. No.1198 of 2024 returning I.A. No.1129 of 2024. It is a reasoned order and well- founded and there is no error, much less jurisdictional error in the said order. The petitioner failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, the present revision fails and is liable to be dismissed. 27. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.