1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 316/2009 (Prakash Rambhau Kapkar & others VERSUS Sindhutai Devidas Hemke) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. Harshada Prabhu h/f Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the petitioners. Shri C.S. Kaptan, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order dated 05.08.2008. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gadchiroli was justified in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner to the evidence of the power of attorney holder appointed by the respondent/defendant. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondent/defendant had filed affidavit of her husband who was also her power of attorney holder. The petitioner raised an objection to the evidence of the power of attorney holder appointed by the respondent. The trial Court rightly rejected the objection raised by the petitioner by relying on the 2 provisions of Section 120 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The trial Court further held that whether the power of attorney holder had personal knowledge about the matter in controversy may be a question which could be thrashed out by cross-examining him and if it is found that the power of attorney holder had no personal knowledge about the facts in controversy, then the evidentiary value of his deposition may be whittled down. The trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that it had nothing to do with the competence of the power of attorney holder to depose before the Court as a competent witness. The order passed by the trial Court on 05.08.2008 is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The trial Court committed no error in dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 20.12.2008. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE