HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.No.4488 of 2010 Date: September 5, 2011 Between: G.D.D.Divakar, rep. by his GPA Holder D.Christopher, S/o.Samuel, Aged 41 years, Occ:Secretary, Deccan Association, R/o.Jangaon, Warangal … Petitioner And M/s.Banjara Development Trust, Rep. by its Chairman & Chief Functionary R.Narsingh Naik, S/o.late Hanuma Naik, R/o. Hanamkonda, Warangal District and another … Respondents Order: Defendant No.1 in the suit in O.S.No.446 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal has filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved of the order dated 11.06.2010 passed in I.A.No.1879 of 2009. The aforesaid suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein for perpetual injunction orders. The 1st respondent-plaintiff has adduced evidence. On the ground that the petitioner- defendant No.1 failed to adduce evidence, his evidence was closed. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed an application in I.A.No.1555 of 2008 and it was allowed with a condition to adduce evidence on 15.10.2009. At that stage, he filed another application in I.A.No.1879 of 2009 under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to permit him to give evidence through his Special Power of Attorney holder by name D.Christoper on the ground that he is unable to attend Court by virtue of his occupation as an Executive Director. The Court below, by the impugned order, mainly relying on the judgment in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. And Ors.[1] rejected the said application; which gave rise to filing of this civil revision petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though petitioner has filed the application-I.A.No.1879 of 2009 in conformity with Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice (for short, ‘the Rules’), the Court below has rejected the same without recording valid reasons. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents that Power of Attorney can be permitted to depose to the extent of facts which are in his knowledge, but not with regard to facts which are exclusively in the knowledge of the principal and the Court below has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner by the impugned order. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I have perused the provision under Rule 32 (1) and (2) of the Civil Rules of Practice and also the judgment relied on by the Court below in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. And Ors. It is to be noticed that when evidence is being recorded, the present application has been filed. At that stage, what is required is an affidavit of the principal giving the details of the requirements as contemplated under Rule 32(1) of the Rules. Having regard to the issues framed in the suit, what is the extent to which the deposition of the Special Power of Attorney is to be taken into consideration is a matter which is to be considered at the stage of the disposal of the suit. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment relied on the Court below referred above is wrongly applied to the present application at that stage. As it is clear from the affidavit, petitioner has already complied the requirements under Rule 32(1) of the Rules in seeking permission for deposition through his Special Power of Attorney holder. In that view of the matter, there appears no reason in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Further, a Division Bench of this Court, in Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and another v. Indira Devi and another[2], at para-16, held as under: “Therefore, the requirement is that when G.P.A.- holder is representing the party, the Judge is required to record in writing that he is permitted to appear and act on behalf of the party. In the instant case, the procedure prescribed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice has been followed. The case dealt with by the learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court was on a different footing. Apart from that, when once a person files a suit on behalf of the party, as a G.P.A. holder he enters into the shoes of that party and except to the extent of personal knowledge, he is entitled to depose on other facts. In the instant case, what was relied upon by the plaintiffs is entirely documentary evidence, which are public documents and no personal knowledge was required to be pressed into service to establish the case of plaintiff.” For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge, i.e. the order dated 11.06.2010 passed in I.A.No.1879 of 2009 in O.S.No.446 of 2005 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal is set aside. Civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.1879 of 2009 stands allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 5, 2011 MRR [1] AIR 2005 SC 439 [2] 2004 (7) ALT 745 (D.B.)