: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.120 OF 2009 Dayanand Babu Mokal & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Ganpat Rambhau Manjarekar & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. G.S. Godbole i/by Ashok b. Tajane for the appellants None for the respondents ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 3rd JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The respondents herein instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.21 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shriwardhan, Dist. Raigad. The said suit was for an injunction restraining appellants from interfering with the possession of the respondents. The said suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2004 against which the present appellants i.e. Dayanand Mokal and others : 2 : filed Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2008 in the Court of District Judge-1, Mangaon, Dist. Raigad. The said appeal was heard and decided by learned District Judge-1, Mangaon, Dist. Raigad and by his judgment and decree dated 29th December,2008 the said appeal came to be dismissed, hence the second appeal. 2. It is to be noted that evidence is given on behalf of the respondents by their power of attorney and before this Court, it was argued that the power of attorney resided in one village and suit property is in different village. According to learned advocate Mr. Godbole this was a patent defect and therefore the evidence of the power of attorney should not have been accepted by the learned Judge. He drew my attention to the judgment in the case of Janki Vashdeo Ojwani & Ors. V/s. Industrial Bank Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC.439 to say that the learned trial Judge has not considered the aforesaid judgment. 3. I have considered the submission of the learned advocate Mr. Godbole. It is not necessary that a person who is appointed as a power of attorney must stay in the same village where the suit land is. : 3 : 4. I am not inclined accept the submission as there is no provision of law by which it can be said that the person who is to be appointed as a power of attorney must be from the same village in which the land is situate. The only requirement is that if the plaintiff in a suit wishes to lead evidence through the power of attorney, the power of attorney must have complete information and knowledge of the facts in as much as the said power of attorney has participated in the varios events involved in the matter. In the present case, no such defect is pointed out and hence, the learned Judges in both the Courts have not committed error in appreciating the evidence. In my view, both the Courts have appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and have arrived at proper findings and no interference is required and the second appeal particularly is required to be rejected. Hence, the order. ORDER . Second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. . Civil Application NO.548 of 2009 is dismissed in : 4 : view of the dismissal of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)