-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 729 OF 2011 Sine Fine Advertising (P) Ltd. Represented by its local Assistant Branch Manager, Smt. Pravina Pramod Fatarpekar, The Power of Attorney, holder duly authorised by the, Company having its branch Office at M-46, Hosing Board, Alto Porvorim, Goa. …... Petitioner V e r s u s Smt. Salette Miranda e Shetty, House No.683, Ferry Point, Betim, Bardez, Goa. …... Respondent Shri C. Fonseca, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 1 st December, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri C. Fonseca, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. WP-729-11 -2- 3. This is a Petition to challenge the Order dated 15.03.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, whereby an application filed by the Petitioners to substitute the Power of Attorney came to be rejected. The Petition also challenges another Order passed by the learned Judge dated 20.10.2011, whereby similar application came to be rejected on the ground that this issue has become resjudicata. 4. Shri Fonseca, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has pointed out that by the applications filed by the Petitioners, the Petitioners only desire to examine a new Power of Attorney who according to the learned Counsel was a duly authorised representative of the Private Limited Company and, as such, the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned Order refusing such reliefs to the Petitioners. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the earlier Power of Attorney is no longer associated with the Petitioner and, as such, the question of calling such person on behalf of the Petitioner does not arise at all. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Order and pointed out that the learned Judge has misconstrued the well settled principles of law and has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the Petitioners. 5. On the other hand, Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, disputed the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the Petitioners are unnecessarily delaying disposal of the suit by filing untenable application. The WP-729-11 -3- learned Counsel further submits that there is no provision whereby Power of Attorney can be substituted and there is no bar a fresh Power of Attorney can be examined on behalf of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel Shri Lawande as such submitted that the Petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, I find that the reliefs sought by the Petitioners in the application filed by them before the learned Judge are totally misplaced. The question of filing any application to substitute a Power of Attorney does not arise at all. But, however, The learned Judge ought to have permitted the new Power of Attorney who is duly authorised to represent the Petitioners to depose on their behalf in accordance with law. As such, the learned Judge has committed an error in exercising its jurisdiction by refusing the request of the Petitioners to permit a fresh Power of Attorney to be examined on behalf of the Petitioners. No doubt, the Respondents are always entitled to dispute such authority of such new Power of Attorney in the cross examination of such witness. In view of the above, I find that the impugned Orders dated 15.03.2011 and 20.10.2011 cannot be sustained and deserves to be modified for the aforesaid reasons. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned Orders dated .15.03.2011 and 20.10.2011 are modified and the Petitioners are permitted to examine the fresh Power of Attorney duly authorized by the Petitioners to depose in the suit in accordance with law. WP-729-11 -4- (ii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iii) Petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/* WP-729-11