IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.241 OF 2009 Between: Gudavali Sivarama Krishna, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.10-52, Gandhi Nagar, Beside Kanya and Sri Kanya Theatres, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. --- Petitioner/Respondent Defendant. AND 1. Koneru Rama Thulasamma, W/o.Late Venkatadri, Aged 70 years, R/o.D.No.10-6-7, Beside SBI main Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. 2. O. Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Late Veeraju, Aged 36 years, R/o.DNo.27-3-71, Street No.1, Official Colony, Srinagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. --- Respondents/Petitioners Plaintiffs. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.241 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Order and decree, dated 18-11-2008 made in I.A.No.1227 of 2008 in O.S. No.585 of 2006, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, whereunder and whereby a petition filed by the second petitioner therein to represent and give evidence on behalf of the first petitioner therein under General Power of Attorney, dated 08-07-2008, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that G.P.A. holder can not give evidence on behalf of the principal except to the facts which are within his knowledge. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the order under challenge is not shown to be perverse or improper, in view of the fact that G.P.A holder can give evidence on behalf of the principal. On the point to what extent the G.P.A. can give evidence on behalf of the principal, law is well settled as laid down in a decision reported in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Limited and others[1], wherein it is held that : “Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. In our view the word “acts” employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, confines only in respect of “acts’ done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term “acts’ would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined”. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the G.P.A. holder can give evidence on behalf of the principal to the facts which are within his knowledge, but he cannot depose in respect of facts within the personal knowledge of principal. 5. Clarifying the above order, the Revision is disposed of. It is made clear that the G.P.A. holder can give evidence to the facts which are within his knowledge. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ K.C.BHANU, J. March, 11, 2010. DSH [1] AIR 2005 S.C. 439.