IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5231 of 2007 Between: Vallabhaneni Subbarao ..Petitioner AND Sami Madhavi Latha @ Tulasi Latha .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Sri N. Srirama Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, in I.A.No.865 of 2007 in O.S.No.215 of 2004 on 01-10-2007, dismissing the petition by the defendant/revision petitioner to reject the affidavit of the chief- examination of PW.1, who is the General Power of Attorney holder and natural father of the plaintiff staying in United States of America. The objection of the revision petitioner was that the General Power of Attorney holder is not entitled to depose on behalf of the plaintiff and the petition was resisted on behalf of the plaintiff claiming that PW.1 was only attempting to give evidence about the facts known to him personally in his individual capacity and also as guardian of his daughter during her minority. The trial Court passed the impugned order noting that a perusal of the affidavit in question disclosed that what was stated was in accordance with the pleadings and in the light of the decision reported in 2005 (3) ALD 43 (SC), a power of attorney holder can depose in respect of acts done by him in exercise of the power granted to him. The trial Court, therefore, negatived the objection. The revision petitioner contended that the unregistered Power of Attorney is inadmissible in evidence and the liberty given to a Power of Attorney holder to act under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not have included any deposition on behalf of the principal. The revision petitioner claimed that the Power of Attorney was given for specific purposes and not to give evidence and hence, desired that the impugned order be reversed. The point for consideration is whether the exercise of judicial discretion by the trial Court in accepting to act upon the affidavit of chief-examination of PW.1 needs to be interfered with? Learned counsel for the respondent rightly referred to Podelly Chinna Chinnanna v. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna and others[1], wherein it was laid down that Order III Rule 1 has no restricted applicability nor does it exclude any particular act specifically. The Division Bench held that the only requirement for a person to act as a recognized agent is to hold a valid authority duly conferring such powers. The Division Bench examined the question with reference to various precedents and concluded that 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 to testify. The competency and question how far and to what extent a person can speak were held to be two different aspects, which cannot be mixed up to reject a person from entering the witness box. The decision, holding that a power of attorney holder is fully competent to come as witness on behalf of his principal, squarely applies to the facts of the present case, and PW.1 cannot, therefore, be held to be incompetent to be a witness for the plaintiff. A perusal of the copy of the affidavit of the chief- examination of PW.1 discloses that whatever he attempted to say is about the facts and circumstances claimed by him to be within his personal knowledge and how far and to what extent such claims can be taken as probablising any statements made by him is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the trial Court with reference to his cross-examination that may be conducted by the revision petitioner and the other oral and documentary evidence by the parties to be placed before the trial Court. The reliability and acceptability of the evidence being different and permissibility of the statements made by PW.1 in his affidavit in chief-examination being distinct, these two aspects cannot be mixed up and if PW.1 holds a valid authorization to represent the plaintiff in the suit, his attempt to depose on matters within his personal knowledge cannot be frowned upon. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference except for the clarification that the appreciation of the statements made by PW.1 in his affidavit in chief-examination is for the Court to decide on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-07-2010 Ksn [1] 2004 (1) ALD 241 (2) (DB)