IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 400 OF 2008 NANDAN PRABHU DESSAI ... Petitioner Versus RANJIT ROBINSON AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 10th July, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner who is Defendant No.2 in Special Civil Suit No. 140/97. The Plaintiff in that suit has appointed his father as his attorney to depose in the suit, as the Plaintiff is abroad. An application filed on behalf of Defendant No.2, based on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.(AIR 20204 SC 439) and contending that the said attorney could not depose to the facts which were to the knowledge of the Plaintiff, came to be rejected by the trial Court observing as follows:- "In the instant case, according to D. E. Robinson, he is well aware of the facts of the case and hence chance should be given to him to depose about the facts within his knowledge and his affidavit in evidence cannot be thrown off the record at its threshold. If in the cross examination, it is noticed that D. E. Robinson is not aware of the facts of the case, then the evidentiary value of his deposition has to be considered vis-a-vis the aforesaid rulings of the Apex Court but at this stage it is premature to assess his affidavit in evidence, when the cross examination has not yet started, specially when Mr. Robinson has sworn in his affidavit that he knows the facts of the case". In my view, the said finding of the learned trial Court calls for no interference, in extraordinary jurisdiction. In a similar case this Court vide Judgment dated 30-11-2007 in Writ Petition No.503/2007 observed as follows: "The contention of the petitioner is that the power of attorney cannot depose in place of the principal. There can't be such a universal proposition. A power of attorney can appear, plead and act on behalf of the principal and this is in view of the principle "Qui facit per alium, facit per se" (he who acts through another acts himself) and the provisions of Order III, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. He can depose facts which are to his knowledge and if he deposes facts which are to the knowledge of the principal, those facts may not be accepted and in that the principal-party may be taking a risk, and, that is what the Apex Court meant in Janki V. Bhojwani (supra) when it stated that a power of attorney cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of a plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff. At this stage it is impermissible to lay down any such broad proposition that the plaintiff cannot lead evidence in support of their claim by examining their attorney". The Plaintiff has appointed an attorney to depose on his behalf. Certainly he would not be able to depose as to the facts which are to the personal knowledge of the Plaintiff and if he deposes as to these facts they would certainly not be accepted. It is the risk the Plaintiff takes. The attorney cannot be foreclosed from deposing in the manner sought to be done by the Defendant No.2. The impugned Order calls for no interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.