HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 251 OF 2010 Friday, the Eleventh day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between G.Srikanth Petitioner AND S.C. Bose & Company, A partnership firm, Rep.by S.C. Bose and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 251 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4.12.2009 passed in I.A. No. 3518 of 2009 in O.S. No. 256 of 2002 whereby the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has dismissed the application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC praying to receive and mark certain documents through PW-2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above suit, which was filed claiming damages against the respondents. It is his case that after examining himself as PW-1 and marking documents Ex. A-1 to A-17, he has traced the petition schedule documents and sought to receive and mark the same through General Power of Attorney. It is case of the respondent that the petitioner is trying to fill up the lacunae in his evidence inasmuch as he was already examined as PW-1 and, as such, the question of examining the General Power of Attorney Holder on his behalf, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. The court below, apart from other reasons with regard to the delay in filing the documents, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Limited and others {2005(2) ALT 57 (SC)} and another decision of this Court i n S.Padmavathamma Vs. S.Sudha Rani and others {2004 (3) ALT 213}, has dismissed the application observing that after examination of the petitioner as PW-1, his General Power of Attorney cannot be examined on his behalf inasmuch as the General Power of Attorney is not competent to be examined on his behalf for the purpose of marking the documents. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The petitioner was already examined as PW-1 and Exs. A-1 to A-17 were marked on his behalf. The contents of the documents, which are now sought to be received and marked in evidence, can only be spoken to by the plaintiff and not his General Power of Attorney. Therefore, the Court below is perfectly justified in observing that the General Power of Attorney is not competent to be examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I am of the considered view that no grounds are made out to interfere with the observations made by the court below and I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari June 11, 2010 MAS