CRP 301/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as S Chakraborty, l earned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 61/2008 by the present pe tition has challenged the order 20.5.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati whereby and whereunder the prayer for expunging the evide nce on affidavit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and to allow the petitioner f ather Md. Asadullah to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff has been rejected. It appears from the order dated 20.5.2011 that the said prayer has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner’s father, who according to the petitioner has been empowered to give evidence in the suit by executing the power of attorney, cannot depose on behalf of the principal as the power of attorney holder does n ot have the personal knowledge of the matters of the plaintiff. The said application was filed on the ground that since the petitioner/plaintiff is a resident and practicing Eye surgeon in Delhi, because of his professional commitments, it is not possible for him to come to Guwahati and to attend court on the dates when he is required to appear and as such prayed for expunging the evidence filed on affidavit and to allow his father to file the evidence on affi davit and to examine him as witness in place of the petitioner/plaintiff. As noticed above, the power of attorney holder cannot depose about the personal knowledge of the plaintiff/petitioner, as rightly observed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3 in the impugned order dated 20.5.2011. If the petitioner has any dif ficulty in coming to Guwahati he may file appropriate application seeking his ex amination on commission. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugn ed order dated 20.5.2011 in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of th e constitution of India. However, it would not preclude the petitioner from filing appropriate applicatio n seeking his examination on commission and in the event such application is fil ed the learned court below shall consider the same in accordance with law. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observation.