ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This civil revision petition is filed, assailing the order, dated 7-10-2004, passed by the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, in LA. No. 761 of 2003 in O.S. No. 318 of 1989.
2. The first respondent filed the suit for the relief of partition against the second respondent. Respondents 3 to 85 are said to have derived some interest in the suit schedule property, either from the first respondent or from the second respondent.
3. Initially, the suit was filed by the first respondent, through its General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.), who is none other than the petitioner. Some disputes arose as to whether the petitioner herein was permitted at all to file the instant suit. The Matadhipathi of the first respondent died, even while this dispute was subsisting. Later on, the successor Matadhipathi totally disowned any relationship with the petitioner. As of now, the suit has undergone various stages, including the array of parties, with the change of stands by the parties.
4. The petitioner filed the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as one of the defendants. He made a reference to several proceedings as well as transactions that have taken place ever since the filing of the suit. He pleaded that he has alienated vast extent of property in favour of the third parties not only in his capacity as G.P.A., but also on the basis of his independent rights. The application was resisted mainly by the first respondent, and ultimately, the same was rejected.
5. Sri M.P. Chandramouli, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that due to differences of opinion between the petitioner and the Matadhipathies of the first respondent, a necessity has arisen for the petitioner to come on record, as an independent party. He contends that apart from being a G.P.A., the petitioner had acquired independent rights in respect of the properties of the first respondent. He has also made a reference to certain other suits, where the validity of the transactions, to which the petitioner is a party, were adjudicated upon. He, ultimately, submits that no prejudice would be caused to the parties, if the petitioner is impleaded as one of the defendants and on the other hand, such a step would help the Court in undertaking a complete adjudication of the matter.
6. Sri Seshadri Naidu, the learned Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that neither in the plaint nor in any other proceedings in the instant suit, the petitioner claimed any independent right and he acted only as an agent to the first respondent. He contends that once the agency has come to an end, the petitioner has no independent right to get himself impleaded as defendant.
7. The suit has a prolonged history. It is pending for the past 17 years, on account of several factors. The stands of the parties have also undergone substantial change. A perusal of the record discloses that there were stages where some of the defendants were arrayed as plaintiffs and vice-versa. Several corrections had to be made and ultimately, the suit is now ripe for trial.
8. It is not in dispute that the entire role played by the petitioner in the instant suit ever since it was filed, was only as a G.P.A. of the first respondent. He did not plead any right of his own in the suit schedule property. It is settled principle of law that the right of an agent subsists only as long as the principal permits to continue. The agency of the petitioner came to an end, with the death of the then Matadhipathi of the first respondent. It is not necessary to refer to the plea said to have been taken by the then Matadhipathi, denying the very conferment of authority to the petitioner to file this suit. The second aspect of the matter is that even now the petitioner does not claim any right in any part of the suit schedule property.
9. Once it had emerged that the petitioner did not plead any right of his own in the subject-matter of the suit when it was filed, nor did he plead that he acquired any right subsequent to the filing of the suit in any of the items of the property, it is impermissible for him to come on record as a party of the suit.
10. The petitioner claims to have executed sale deeds in favour of some of the defendants in the suit. As and when the validity of such sale deeds falls for consideration, the defendants concerned can, certainly, examine the petitioner herein as a witness. This aspect of the matter has already been taken care of by the trial Court.
11. In case, the petitioner was examined as a witness and if, ultimately, emerges that he has any independent right of his own in the suit schedule properties, otherwise than in the capacity of G.P.A. of the first respondent, and the adjudication of the same becomes relevant, the trial Court can, certainly, consider the feasibility of permitting the petitioner to come on record. This, however, must precede the formation of opinion by the trial Court, based upon the relevant material and not on the basis of mere assertion and denial of parties.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is made clear that it shall be open to any parties to the suit to examine the petitioner as a witness and in case it emerges that the petitioner possess any independent right otherwise than in the capacity of a G.P.A. and in case the trial Court feels that the presence of the petitioner as a party is necessary to the suit for effective adjudication, it shall consider the feasibility of adding him.
13. The suit is of the year 1989 and it cannot brook any further delay. The trial Court shall proceed to decide the matter on priority basis and dispose it by the end of 2006.