1 wp 2408.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2408 OF 2010 Shaikh Balan S/o Shaikh Chand .. Petitioner Versus Malang S/o Chunu Shaikh Died Shenshah S/o Malang Shaikh and ors. .. Respondents Shri A, V. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed a suit for perpetual injunction. The examination in chief was filed by the power of attorney holder Shaikh Salar on behalf of the plaintiff Shaikh Balan. The Trial Court disallowed the said evidence on the ground that the power of attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of plaintiff relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 2005 SC 439. Shri Patil, the 2 wp 2408.10 learned counsel holding for Shri Gunale, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the power of attorney holder cannot depose in respect of the facts which are of the personal knowledge of the plaintiff, still the power of attorney holder can depose in respect of the facts which are to his personal knowledge. This aspect should have been considered by the Trial Court. 2. Shri Urgunde, the learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Janki Vashdeo referred supra the power of attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of the plaintiff. He can only depose in respect of the acts of which he was authorized by the power of attorney. 3. The proposition that a power of attorney holder cannot depose in respect of the facts which are to the personal knowledge of plaintiff is a settled proposition. A power of attorney holder can only depose in respect of the facts to his personal knowledge. 4. The examination in chief is led by the power of attorney holder. The power of attorney holder is entitled to depose in 3 wp 2408.10 respect of the facts which are to his personal knowledge. In such circumstances, the evidence cannot be totally rejected. The part which is to the personal knowledge of the power of attorney holder can be considered. What would be the effect of that evidence is different matter altogether which the Court can consider. As such, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to set aside the whole examination in chief. The order to that extent is quashed and set aside. 5. Shri Patil, the learned counsel submits that, now the plaintiff has died. Once the plaintiff dies, the power of attorney also comes to an end. In such circumstances, it would be for the legal heirs to take appropriate steps. The Trial Court shall consider the effect of the examination in chief filed by the power of attorney holder of plaintiff viz-a-viz the death of the plaintiff. But by no stretch, the power of attorney holder is entitled to lead any evidence in respect of those facts which are to the personal knowledge of the plaintiff. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11