THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P No.301 of 2010 DATE: 18-02-2011 Between: P.Vara Lakshmi … Petitioner And D.Basava Reddy … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No. 301 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. The present civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-10-2009 in I.A.No.1177 of 2009 in O.S.No.519 of 2006, on the file of theII-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice to permit her son P. Raj Kumar, who is the G.P.A. holder, to give evidence on her behalf, was dismissed. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for injunction against the respondent in respect of the schedule property. When the matter came up for trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1177 of 2009 seeking permission for her son P. Raj Kumar, who is her G.P.A. holder to depose on her behalf. According to the petitioner, even during the lifetime of her husband, her son P. Raj Kumar was looking after the affairs and he would be the proper person to depose about facts of the case on her behalf. The petitioner has furnished an affidavit as required under Rule 33 of Civil Rules of Practice setting out the reasons as to why the permission is sought. In the said affidavit the petitioner has stated that she is not in a position to give evidence and she is a diabetic patient and she is also suffering from the blood pressure and during the lifetime of her husband, her son was looking after all the cases on her behalf and used to depose before the Courts. She also stated in the said affidavit that she executed G.P.A. on 31-07-2009 in favour of her son P.Raj Kumar to give evidence and the said G.P.A is subsisting. The learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application only on the ground that the affidavit is silent on the aspect that the G.P.A holder is having full knowledge of the facts of the case. It is to be noted that the G.P.A holder is not a stranger, but is son of the petitioner herself. In the affidavit, the petitioner has specifically stated the reason as to why she is unable to attend the court and give evidence and also stated that her son used to represent her in other cases and depose on her behalf and that the G.P.A. executed by her in favour of her son is subsisting. 4. As the petitioner is an old lady and her husband is no more, it is quite natural that she seeks to take the assistance of her son in prosecuting the suit and deposing on her behalf. Simply because the affidavit does not specifically mention that the petitioner’s son is in full knowledge of the facts of the case, refusal to grant permission sought for is unjustified. Adherence to technicalities should not be allowed to come in the way of rendering substantial justice between the parties. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the assistance of her son in prosecuting the suit simply because the affidavit is not properly drafted. 5. In the circumstances, it is considered a fit case where the impugned order calls for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and, consequently, I.A.No.1177 of 2009 stands allowed and the petitioner is permitted to examine her son P. Raj Kumar, the G.P.A., on her behalf and represent the case on her behalf. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 18th February 2011 Ksm/Lrkm