ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2024, passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in Memo S.R.No.9676 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 of 2023. 2. Heard Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Natraj, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.1 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as they were arrayed in the suit. 4. The brief facts that are relevant for adjudication of this revision petition is that the plaintiff filed a suitrepresented by G.P.Aholder videO.S.No.137 of 2023 for suit for declaration of title. The defendants entered appearance and filed an application vide I.A.No.765 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking for rejection of plaint principally on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected. 5. The G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff has filed counter- affidavit resisting the said application and contended that the plaintiff executed General Power of Attorney on 09.08.2019. Unfortunately, she died on 23.11.2020, which was informed to him on 10.07.2023, by her daughter by name, Ms.Shireen Butz, and thereafter, the said Shireen Butzexecuted G.P.A. in favour of B.Aravind Reddy on 25.07.2023 and the same was validated before the District Registrar, Hyderabad. It is further averred that he being the Power of Attorney Holder, has authority to prosecute the case and is well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further averred that the application for rejection of plaint is frivolous and is filed only to drag court proceedings and the contentions that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation is untenable and liable to be rejected. It is further averred that the suit is maintainable and is within period of limitation and clearly disclose the cause of action in filing the suit and thus, prayed to dismiss the application. 6. It is further averred that the suit is maintainable and is within period of limitation and clearly disclose the cause of action in filing the suit and thus, prayed to dismiss the application. 6. While the application was pending for adjudication, defendant No.2 filed a memo to dismiss/reject the suit on the ground that the suit was filed by the plaintiff represented by her G.P.A. holder, executed on 09.08.2019. As per the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed in I.A.No.765 of 2023, the G.P.A holder specifically stated that the plaintiff expired on 23.11.2020 and the said fact was informed to him by her daughter on 10.07.2023 and thereafter,fresh deed of Power of Attorney was executed by daughter of plaintiff in favour of B.Aravind Reddy on 25.07.2023. It is specifically averred that admittedly, a suit was filed on 16.02.2023 and the plaintiff was expired on 23.11.2020. Therefore, the plaintiff was not alive as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the deed of Power of Attorney, dated 09.08.2019 was not valid and was not in force. Therefore, the institution of the suit itself was without any authority and the same are illegal and therefore, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. It is further averred that as per Rules 32 and 33 of Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980, it is mandatory to say that the power given to the attorney was subsisting as on the date of filing of the case. Since the plaintiff expired on 23.11.2020, the Power of Attorney was not subsisting as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected/ dismissed. 7. A reply was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the memo filed by defendant No.2. It is averred that the plaintiff expired on 23.11.2020 and the same was informed to the Power of Attorney on 10.07.2023 by Ms.Shireen Butz (daughter of the plaintiff), which is subsequent to filing of the suit and thereafter, she executed deed of Power of Attorney in favour of Sri Banda Aravind Reddy on 25.07.2023 and the same was validated before the District Registrar on 11.10.2023 and he has filed an application on 11.10.2023 to bring the legal representatives on record along with an application under Rules 32 and 33 of Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980. It is further averred that memo filed by defendant No.2 seeking for rejection of the plaint is misconceived and is not maintainable and averred that no application was filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased is baseless and therefore, the application seeking for rejection of plaint cannot be taken up for adjudication and finally contended that the memo filed by defendant No.2 is misconceived and is not maintainable under law. 8. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 25.07.2024 held that the suit filed by the Power of Attorney holder was maintainable and rejected the memo filed by defendant No.2. The trial Court by referring to paragraph No.8 of the plaint stated that the agent is also a person interested in subject matter and that the total sale consideration in respect thereof was already paid and same is explained in the plaint in a very detailed manner. The trail Court further observed that in the light of Section 3 of The Powers-of- Attorney Act, 1882 Section 202 (a) of Contract Act, 1872, the G.P.A. coupled with interest will be operative even after the death of the principal and therefore, the suit filed by the Agent based on G.P.A. is maintainable.Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has erroneously rejected the memo with perverse finding that G.P.A. coupled with interest will be operative even after the death of the principal, as per Section 3 of The Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 on one hand and Section 202 coupled with illustration (a) of Contract Act, 1872, on the other hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the said observations made by the trial Court is erroneous as such there is no interest accrued to the G.P.A. holder executed from the deed of Power of Attorney dated 09.08.2019. Originally, the daughter of the plaintiff executed G.P.A. holder only to look after and sell the property on her behalf. He would further submit that under the said G.P.A., the Power of Attorney holder was only authorized to represent the principal powers under the local bodies and also to protect or initiate criminal cases and there is no whisper of payment of any consideration or creation of any interest in favour of Attorney. He would further submit that under the said G.P.A., the Power of Attorney holder was only authorized to represent the principal powers under the local bodies and also to protect or initiate criminal cases and there is no whisper of payment of any consideration or creation of any interest in favour of Attorney. Therefore, the observations made by the trial Court as per paragraph No.8 of the plaint, that the total sale consideration in respect was already paid and Agent is also a person interested in the subject matter are perverse and reflects non-application of mind by the trial Court. He would further submit that the Agent himself has admitted in the counter-affidavit filed in I.A.No.765 of 2023 that G.P.A. was executed on 09.08.2019 and the principal expired on 23.11.2020 whereas, the suit was filed on 16.02.2023 by the Agent as on that which date G.P.A. was not subsisting, in view of death of the principal. It is further averred that the daughter of the plaintiff executed G.P.A. on 25.07.2023, which is after filing of the suit and subsequent to General Power of Attorney. Finally, prayed to allow the revision. 10. A perusal of the record would disclose that originally, the plaintiff executed G.P.A. on 09.08.2019,basing on which Agent filed suit on 16.02.2023 for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of suit schedule property. It is interesting to note that the Agent himself in the counter- affidavit in I.A.No.765 of 2023 admitted that the principal expired on 23.11.2020 and therefore, it is clear that as on the date of filing of subject I.A., the G.P.A. was not subsisting. Further, the daughter of the plaintiff executed fresh Power of Attorney on 25.7.2023,i.e., after filing of the suit, therefore, initially, there was no Power to the Agent to file suit on 16.02.2023. It is relevant to note that under the G.P.A. dated 09.08.2019, executed by the original plaintiff in favour of the Agent, the Agent was authorized only to represent the principal, semi Government and local body offices, to protect the lands and file civil and criminal cases, if necessary, and nowhere it is mentioned that any interest is created in favour of the Agent. Therefore, the observation made by the trial court that G.P.A. coupled with interest will be in operation even after the death of the principal, in view of Section 3 of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 and Section 202 coupled with illustration (a) Contract Act, 1872 is perverse and reflects non-application of mind and that too, on the basis of submissions made in the plaint at paragraph No.8 which are completely in different context and cannot be applied to the Agent. Since, there is no subsisting Power of Attorney as on the date of filing of the suit i.e., on 16.02.2023 the suit itself is not maintainable and is filed without any authority and thus, the suit is liable to be rejected for lack of authority. 11. The subsequent Power of Attorney executed by the daughter of the plaintiff is after filing of application vide I.A.No.765 of 2023 by the Agent to bring the legal representatives on record cannot be adjudicated, since the suit itself is not maintainable. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and consequently, the memo filed by defendant No.2 stands allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff stands rejected. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.