Md! 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (227mg 2w g“ /2‘009 : / 1. Smt. Rani Bai Dixit, aged about 65 yaars, W/o Late Shri Hari Dixit, DiXit BOQk Depot, KK. Road, Raipur (CG) 2. Smt. Nalini Trivedi,‘ aged about 44 years, W/o Shri Rajendra'Trivedi, R/o Flat N0. 4, 54, Bisnu Apartment, Trimurty Nagar, Nagpur (MS) g /'3. Ku, Vijaya Dixit, aged about 43 \pa)w~ years, D/o Late Shri Hari Prasad ' v dixit, Dixit Book Depot, K.K. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Kshama Bajpai, aged about 39 years, W/o Shri Alok Bajpai, R/o YadaV House, Napier Town, Jabalpur, (M.P.) 5. Ku. Urna Dixit, aged about 29 years, D/o Late Shri Hari Prasad Dixit, DiXit Book Depot, K.K. Road, Raipur (C.G.) All Represented by Attor‘rey Unesh Kumar D1x1t aged about 49 years S/o Late {-Ia-H-Prasad D1X1t D1x1t Book Depot, KK. Road, Ralpur (CG) " PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS /4_ VERSUS : ,x 1. Acchelal Jaiswal aged about 58 k W years S/o Gm Mlaiswal R/o ‘ ’Opp Mahav1r Gaushala K K Road § Maudaha Para, Rarpur (CG) me/a RESPONDENTS DEFENDENTS / 2. Ram Palat Jaiswal, aged about 37 \ g years, S/o Shri Surya Lal Jaiswal, R/o B—8 & 9, Sector—1, Devendra ,i‘ Nagar, Raip‘ur(C.G‘) 2 \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I § Lxgg mm m 200g WW (ma) mmm WWW WW§WW wmm %W_m S B Hon’ble Shrl Jusnce N K. Avarwal 17 06 2009 Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Adv ocate for the patitioners. Heard on admission. This petition is directed against ”the order datgd 07.052009 (Annexure P/l ), passed by IXth Additiona1 District Judge (FTC), Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 13-‘A/2006, whereby the application, filed by the respondents under Order 3 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been allowed and the petitioners were directed that evidence of Power of Attorney holder Umesh Kumar DiXit would be treated as his personal evidence in his personal acity and further ordered to file affidavit of all the plaintiffs Witnes es on the next date of hearing. Shri Agrawal, learned cou’ sel appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that although Power of Attorney can depose on behalf of plaintiff but if the Power of A orney holder has rendered some acts in pursuance to Power of ttorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts‘ In the instant case, the tenancy agreement has been executed by Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiffs ie Unresh Kumar D and'that agreement is in his ‘ personal knowledge so certainly e can prove that agreement He x further submits that the trr‘ court is not allowrng the \ p t i 't a mmékm ammm 31mm (Wu) W%Q%W WWW 92, ammm ylam'iiffs/patitioncrs to prove ’t' sid agrment which as executed by Umesh Kumar ixit. I have heard the consel appearing for the petitioners. Perused the pleadings nd record appended thereto. After going through the records and hearing th counsel for the petitioners, I a of the opinion that te titioner an ceinly examine as witness to Power of Attorney older Shii sh Kumar DiXit as hie witness _ to prove the agreement whih a executed by him in the capacity of Power of Attorney on behalf of plainti§s. With this oservation, th petition stands disposed of, However, it is directed that the r court sha allow the petitioners to produce evidence in accorda with law and also allow the petitioners to examine Urnesh‘ Vnar DiXit; Power of Attorney holder, to prove the tenany agre nt which is said to b executed by him. No order asto cos. Sdl N.K.Aarwal ge WW& 4 hle a ee w D u a < m h pes c rta h U e c ws t e b i ti li n e K r c e e e st - g Jud