: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2010 M/s.Haldyn Glass Limited ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Francine D’Souza & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.V.B.Pandey for Petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Parekh with Mr.Shambhu Deshmukh i/b India Law Alliance for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.S.OKA, J. DATED:- FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner who is the original Defendant, has challenged the order dated 26th November 2009 passed by the Trial Court. The said order has been passed on an application made by the Petitioner for a direction that affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief filed by one Mrs.Hazel D’Costa, the alleged Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiffs, be discarded. 3. Apart from the fact that the order is purely interlocutory in nature which does not call any interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article : 1 : 227 of the Constitution of India, the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order has clearly observed that a Constituted Attorney of a party cannot depose in place of the party concerned but Constituted Attorney can be examined in capacity as a Power of Attorney. The Trial Court has observed that the Constituted Attorney cannot depose to the facts which only parties can have personal knowledge. The learned Trial Judge had observed that the Petitioner/Defendant can bring on record by way of cross-examination, the facts which are not based on the personal knowledge of the Constituted Attorney and point out that the said facts can be discarded. No interference is called for at this stage. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)