IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :4683 of 2009 Between: Nusrath Hasan ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Nawab Behboob Ali Khan and another .....RESPONDENTs The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4683 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is filed aggrieved by order, dated 27th August, 2009 passed by the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.394 of 2009 in O.S.No.5805 of 2005. The petitioner is the 1st defendant and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 2nd defendant before the Court below. The revision petitioner filed the above application under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to permit K.I. Askari, Special Power of Attorney Holder to represent the matter on her behalf, on the ground that the said Askari is the special power of attorney holder and she executed a written Special Power of Attorney in his favour on 26.2.2009 as she is busy in other avocation and that the present suit is coming for her evidence and therefore, the said Askari must be permitted to represent her and depose evidence. The Court below having observed that the 1st defendant has failed to establish sufficient cause for her non-appearance before the Court below, dismissed the petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the matter is coming for evidence of the petitioner-1st defendant. At this stage, she filed the above application seeking to permit the special GPA holder to represent the matter on her behalf. The reason assigned in the affidavit is that she is busy in other avocation. Except that, she did not assign any other reason and she did not also state as to the nature of her avocation. The reason assigned by the petitioner- 1st defendant is not convincing. Further, the order under revision goes to show that the petitioner-1st defendant sought for permission of the Court to allow the special GPA holder to depose evidence on her behalf. If the petitioner-1st defendant feels any convenience, she can move an application before the Court below to issue a commission. But the GPA holder cannot be permitted to appear as a witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of that party. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 9th October, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4683 OF 2009 09.10.2009