THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1157 of 2011 (Dated : 16-08-2011) Between: Maturu Kiranmayi ….Petitioner A n d Chappidi Geetha Kumari, rep. by GPA Poli Venkataramana Reddy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1157 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 10.2.2011 passed in I.A.No.163 of 2010 in O.S.No.73 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the petitioner-defendant to permit him to represent the defendant No.1, as Power of Attorney Holder came to be allowed. 2. The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2006. She filed the suit for injunction. The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit. When the suit came up for evidence of defendant No.1, an application being I.A.No.163 of 2010 came to be filed under Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking permission of the Court to the General Power of Attorney of the 1st defendant to give evidence on the ground that the 1st defendant fell sick. The plaintiff resisted the application by filing counter. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, allowed I.A.No.163 of 2010 permitting the General Power of Attorney of the 1st defendant to give evidence, by order dated 10.02.2011. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 01.4.2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the general power of attorney holder cannot depose to the facts, which are within the knowledge of the principal, i.e., defendant No.1. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision of this court in T.Penchalaiah v. Jaladanki Saroja[1]. Much emphasis has been laid on paragraph (15) of the cited judgment, which reads as hereunder:- “ Whether non-examination of the respondents is fatal to their case? The respondents examined P.W.4, J.V.Subba Rao, who is GPA holder of the second respondent herein. He spoke about the respondents come on oath. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the petitioner. He marked Ex.X.4, allotment order in favour of late Saroja. An objection was raised before the lower Court that the evidence of P.W.1 has to be assured as GPA cannot give evidence on behalf of the party to the proceedings. The lower Court, however, got over the objection referring to the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Podelly Chinna Chinnanna v Bandari Pedda Bhumanna13. The Division Bench took the view that the evidence of GPA cannot be thrown out and that the same can be given credence to the extent GPA is personally in the know of the things. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered subsequent to the decision of the Division Bench of this court. In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v Indusind Bank Limited (supra), the Supreme Court laid down that the GPA cannot depose for the Principal for the acts done by the Principal and not by him. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is as under. Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. In our view the word "acts" employed in Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC confines only to 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 of 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 of which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.” 6. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the respondent- defendant No.1 submits that a party in a suit can appear and act through his power of attorney holder and therefore, the power of attorney is also competent to give evidence on behalf of the party, in which case, the order impugned in the revision cannot be interfered with, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Podelly Chinna Chinnanna v. Bandari Pedda Bhumana[2]. 7. In Podelly Chinna Chinnanna’s case (2nd supra), it was held as follows:- “15. Therefore, the only requirement for a person to come into the witness box to speak in regard to any facts and circumstances of the case is that he should be competent enough to testify i.e., to speak. The competency as contemplated is a very wider in its connotation. There is distinctive feature between one who is said to be competent on behalf of the person to speak and another how far and to what extent the person can speak. These two aspects cannot be mixed up to reject a person from entering the witness box. As long as one holds proper authority under a Power of Attorney or otherwise, he is fully competent to come as witness on behalf of the said party. The competency as provided for further gets extended under Section 120 there of providing that in any civil proceedings the husband or wife of a party to a suit shall be a competent witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Power of Attorney holder cannot be said to be a incompetent as witness on behalf of the party/executant. Neither the decisions reported in Ramprasad's case (supra) or K. Bharathi's case (supra) considered these aspects and as such it has to be held that the aforesaid decision is not correct. It is thus held answering the reference that a Power of Attorney holder is a competent witness on behalf of the party/ executant and further that the effect and relevancy of such evidence has to be considered from proper perspective on the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. In T.Penchalaiah’s case, a learned Single Judge of this Court referred the decision in Podelly Chinna Chinnanna ‘s case (2nd supra) and observed that the power of attorney holder can speak to the facts, which he is personally aware. Therefore, there is no bar of the general power of attorney giving evidence on behalf of a party, but his evidence is to be confined only to the facts, which are within his knowledge. There is no flaw in the order impugned in the revision. 9. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.16-08-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1157 of 2011 (Dated : 16-08-2011) [1] 2006(6) ALD 560 [2] 2004(1) ALD 241 (2) (DB)