RULE 32 OF CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE - POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - PLEADINGS OF SUBSISTING = whether a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is competent to give evidence as such on behalf of the plaintiff, = it can be considered after taking evidence and while giving judgment as it is a question of fact ; It is nextly contended that the Power of Attorney holder in a petition filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice did not allege that the Power of Attorney deed executed in his favour continues and is subsisting..... is it fatal = No.



C.R.P.No.5750  of 2002


Ranga Lingaiah

Sajjala Venkat Reddy

Counsel for the Appellant:  Sri P.Prabhakara Rao

Counsel for the respondents: Sri Aravinda Rao Verapally

>Head Note:


1.2002 (6) ALD 101


        The question
whether a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is
competent to give evidence as such on behalf of the plaintiff, 
is a question of fact.  
If the Power of Attorney holder has known the facts relating to the suit
personally, then he is always at liberty to give evidence either as Power of
Attorney holder or in his personal capacity.
The contention that Power of
Attorney holder cannot depose the facts which are within the personal knowledge
of the plaintiff, who is his principal, depends upon the material deposed by
such a witness, who is a Power of Attorney holder.
Value to be attached to such
a witness depends on assessment of contents of his deposition after the contents
are recorded.
Therefore, the Power of Attorney holder cannot be precluded from
deposing in the suit  on behalf of the plaintiff
in terms of Ismath Ahmedizade
Mahmoodi Abidi v Kurshidummisa Begum1. 
This Court cannot pre-judge the issue,
 it  is for ultimate assessment of its value by the trial Court at the time of final
disposal of the suit.
        It is nextly contended that the Power of Attorney holder in a petition filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice did not allege that the Power of Attorney deed executed in his favour continues and is subsisting. 
Though the
said words are absent in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it
is not the respondent's case in the counter that the said Power of Attorney deed
was withdrawn by the original plaintiff.  
The said contention of the
petitioner's counsel remains to be too technical in the absence of denial of
subsistence of the power of attorney deed in favour of the Power of Attorney
After all, the Power of Attorney holder is no other than son of the
plaintiff herself.  Son of the plaintiff is a competent witness to depose on
behalf of the plaintiff and to speak the facts within his knowledge,
irrespective of existence of General Power of Attorney deed in his favour. I do
not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
        Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
25th March, 2013


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.