(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the Order dated Order dated 25-07-2025 made in I.A. No. 368 of 2025, on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in dismissing the petition filed the petitioner under 32 of Civil Rules of practice, authorizing his son to represent the petitioner/plaintiff and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay the further proceedings in O. S. No. 710 of 2015, Ill Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass)

1. The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.710 of 2015 before the learned III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, for a permanent injunction, restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. The petitioner also moved I.A.No.368 of 2025, under Rule 32 of C.P.C to permit her to be represented by her son, as her authorized person. This application was resisted by the respondent, on the ground that it is the petitioner, who is fully aware of the facts of the case, including the manner in which the property was alienated, and therefore, the application should not be permitted.

2. The Trial Court dismissed the said application, by an order, dated 25.07.2025. The reason given for such dismissal is that the petitioner had not given valid reasons for appointing her son as her authorized person to represent her.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. There is no representation for the respondent, on 23.01.2026 as well as on 20.02.2026. There is no representation for the respondent even today.

5. In the circumstances, this Court is taking up the Revision Petition on its merits.

6. The reason given, in the order-under-revision, for rejecting the application of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had not given any reason for appointing her son as her authorized representative. Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice, as well as Order III Rule 1 entitle litigants to appoint any person to represent him/her in a suit or other proceedings, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In such circumstances, the question of satisfying the Court as to the reason for making such an arrangement would not arise. The provision of either Rule 32 of C.P.C. or Order III Rule 1 do not provide for any such requirement.

7. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the Trial Court, dated 25.07.2025, and the son of the petitioner shall be permitted to be represented in the suit.

8. The question of whether the petitioner would be the only person who could depose by herself or whether the son of the petitioner, in the position of her authorized representative, would be able to depose on her behalf, is dependent upon the actual knowledge of facts by the authorized representative and that issue is left open. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.