THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5263 of 2011 Dated: 16-12-2011 Oral Order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is by the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 211 of 2009 and the 1st respondent in I.A.No. 684 of 2011, an application filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, seeking the leave of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam to permit the 2nd plaintiff, the father of the 1st plaintiff to represent the 1st plaintiff on the basis of the GPA dated 10- 7-2009. In support of the application, it was pleaded that the 1st plaintiff who is studying in JNTU, Delhi had executed the Power of Attorney dated 10-7-2009 authorising the 2nd plaintiff to represent her interests in the suit. This application was resisted by the revision petitioner contending that the ingredients of Order III Rule 1 CPC and Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice werenot complied with by the petitioner while seeking the relief in I.A.No. 684 of 2011 and therefore the application is not maintainable and ought to be rejected. The Court below allowed the application observing that since the 2nd plaintiff is also one of the signatories to plaint and one of the parties to the suit, there was no necessity to authorise her as an agent and ex abundante cautella the petitioner is seeking the leave of the Court and filing the special power of attorney. In the circumstances and for the reasons recorded, the application was allowed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that under the guise of the order of the Court below, the 2nd plaintiff would file an affidavit in chief of the 1st plaintiff, since the instrument granting the General Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd plaintiff, inter alia authorises the agent to act, to plead, to sign and to verify plaint, written statement, petition and other pleadings. There is nothing either in the terms of the authorisation accorded by the 1st plaintiff in favour of the 2nd plaintiff nor on the normative principles governing the extent of authority that could be exercised under a general or special power of attorney, on the basis of which the petitioner harbours the apprehension that the 2nd plaintiff would file an affidavit in chief on behalf of and representing the 1st plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order of the Court below is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.[1] wherein the principle has been declared that Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to ‘act’ on behalf of the principal and such power which confines only to act done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. There is no occasion to assume that the order of the Court below would per se authorise the 2nd plaintiff to depose as though he was the 1st plaintiff and file an affidavit in chief on behalf of the 1st plaintiff. Such conduct, if any, does not flow from the order in question. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Court below being impeccable, warrants no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revision is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 16th December, 2011. GRR [1] AIR 2005 SC 439