1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECOND APPEAL NO.803/2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1405/2007 Machindra Narayan Kadam. ..Appellant -VERSUS- Vinayak Belnath Dhembare. ..Respondent ......... Mr.Vikram Pai, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.V.S.Talkute, Advocate for the respondent. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The present appellant is the original defendant against whom money decree for the sum of Rs.46,000/- has been passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the said amount on the basis of the promissory note executed by the present appellant where under he was advanced the loan by the plaintiff. The suit was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara. The suit was instituted through the power of attorney holder by name Kanta Shivaji Dhembare who is the wife of the plaintiff's brother. The power of attorney holder had stepped into 2 the witness box and deposed in regard to the suit transaction on the basis of her personal knowledge as she claims that she was present when the transaction was entered between the plaintiff and defendant. This fact is not in dispute that she has so deposed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has raised two contentions viz. the power of attorney holder is not competent to depose and by so contending, reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court judgment reported in 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 1170. On perusal of the said judgment it reveals that the power of attorney holder can always depose on the basis of the personal knowledge. Hence, the objection to the evidence led by the power of attorney holder is wholly devoid of merit and substance. The next objection is to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The said objection has been appropriately dealt by the Trial Court in paragraph No.3 of its judgment. The Trial Court has held that the suit can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides and carries on his business or works for gain. To come to the said conclusion, the Trial Court has referred to the evidence of the defendant wherein he has admitted that his permanent residence is at village Kadve (Bk), Tq.Patan. It is also admitted by the defendant that his place of permanent residence is at the said village and his ancestral house and agricultural property is also in the same village. The defendant' s family also resides at the same place. If this be the position, the Courts below are wholly 3 justified in holding that the Trial Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. No question of law much less substantial, arises for consideration in the appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal is summarily dismissed. Civil Application also does not survive, hence, the same is also dismissed. 3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks stay of this order. Prayer is rejected. JUDGE