HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.1345 of 2011 Date: 21-7-2011 Between V.Satya Babu, S/o. V.Kodanda Naidu (2nd defendant) … Petitioner and N.Lakshmi Narayana Chowdary … Respondent/Plaintiff A.Janardhan Naidu and another … Respondents/Defendants 1 and 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.1345 of 2011 Order: This civil revision petition is filed against the order and decree dated 03-02-2011 in I.A.No.1140 of 2010 in O.S.No.313 of 2003 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor district. 2. The petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 1 and 3, respectively, in the suit before the trial Court. 3. The present application was filed under Order I, Rule 8 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., before the trial Court by the son of the 2nd defendant seeking to permit him to come on record as General Power of Attorney Agent of the 2nd defendant to enable him to give evidence, summon the witnesses etc., on behalf of the 2nd defendant. 4. Perused the order under revision. The trial Court after appreciating the material on record dismissed the said application observing that no person can be substituted with regard to personal knowledge of the party and no person can step into the shoes of a party to depose with regard to facts which are within his knowledge and that the party is the right person to give evidence on his behalf and therefore, he cannot be substituted. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff placed reliance upon a judgment of the apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.[1], wherein it was held as under: “13. Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. In our view the word “acts” employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, confines only in respect of “acts” done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term “acts” would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross- examined.” 6. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by the apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani’s case (supra), I find no reasons to interfere with the order under revision. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order under revision. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. 21st July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.1345 of 2011 21st July, 2011. (Ak) [1] AIR 2005 SC 439