1 wp 9367.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9367 OF 2011 Shobhabai Shivshankar Chobale and others .. Petitioners Versus Balaji Vaijinath Chobale and others .. Respondents Shri Ram Deshpande, Advocate i/by Shri S. V. Warad, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when plaintiff has already examined himself, then his General Power of Attorney holder cannot lead the evidence. The plaintiff cannot lead the evidence twice. In view of that the application filed by petitioners to reject the evidence of General Power of Attorney holder should have been allowed. The learned counsel further contends that the defendant No. 5 was examined without the leave of the Court. The plaintiff could not have examined the defendant as his own witness. The learned counsel contends that 2 wp 9367.11 in such circumstances the evidence of these persons could not have been read and the Court should have discarded the same. The Trial Court has erroneously accepted the said evidence and rejected the application of petitioners. 2. The Court has observed that the evidence of the General Power of Attorney holder would be as a witness of plaintiff. It is trite law that the General Power of Attorney holder cannot adduce evidence as a plaintiff in respect of those facts which are personal to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Though the practice of examining the defendant as a witness of plaintiff is deprecated, still there is no bar to that effect. The plaintiff is claiming declaration about his 1/4 th share. The defendant has not objected to be examined as a witness of plaintiff. In such circumstances, no error has been committed by the Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11