Whether an interlocutory application is maintainable for permission of GPA to represent and depose on behalf of one of the party before the family court and any advocate of the choice of party to make available the skype facility for the court to interact with the party as he is in abroad - their lordships hled that Family Court to entertain the I.A. as it is maintainable and permit the GPA of the 2nd petitioner in O.P. to represent and depose on behalf of the 2nd petitioner in the O.P. and the Family Court shall also direct such GPA or any legal practitioner chosen by him to make available the skype facility for the Court to interact with the 2nd petitioner, who is staying at Melbourne, Australia and record the consent of 2nd petitioner and proceed with the matter thereafter as expeditiously as is possible.-2015 Telangana & A. P.msklawreports



The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent is his
wife.  Both of them have filed the aforesaid O.P.No.1547 of 2014
under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of
their marriage performed on 22.08.2010 by a decree of divorce by
mutual consent. 

The 1st petitioner in the O.P., who is the respondent herein, has
been attending to the proceedings by appearing before the Family
Court. 
However, the father of the 2nd petitioner, who holds the
General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the 2nd petitioner/husband in the
O.P., filed an interlocutory application bearing SR.No.2216 of 2015
on 09.04.2015 before the Family court to receive the chief affidavit of
PW.2/petitioner No.2, duly dispensing with the personal appearance
of the 2nd petitioner before the Family Court.  
The 2nd petitioner has sworn to a detailed affidavit and got it notarized by
a notary public of South Melbourne, Australia.  
That interlocutory
application has been returned with a cryptic order dated 09.04.2015,
which reads as under:
      Petition is returned as not maintainable.
      It is against this order the present revision is filed.
whether a GPA holder can represent a party in Family Court O.P. and
also depose on behalf of his principal.
 in K. BHARATHY, GUDIVADA AND     
ANOTHER v. AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 50 OF A.P.S.E.          
ACT- CUM-LABOUR OFFICER, MACHILIPATNAM AND            
ANOTHER (1999 (3) ALD 420) and contended that no person    
holding a Power of Attorney can examine himself as a witness
and hence, the evidence brought on record through the
Special Power of Attorney holder, viz., PW-1 should be
eschewed and since the petitioner has not examined herself,
the above petition should be dismissed.
       Hence, the question as to 
whether a Power of Attorney
holder can be examined as a witness requires a deeper
consideration.

 Therefore, the contention
canvassed by the learned counsel for the Respondent placing
reliance upon a judgment in K. BHARATHY, GUDIVADA AND      
ANOTHER case cited (1 supra), is not tenable.  It is altogether
a different thing that a Power of Attorney holder is not liable to
be granted permission to plead in a Court, which is an
exercise, regulated by Section 32 of the Advocates Act, while
the act of deposing as a witness on behalf of the Principal, is
not such a regulated exercise. Therefore, the correct way to
understand the judgment in K. BHARATHY, GUDIVADA AND       
ANOTHER case cited (1 supra) is that the power of attorney
holder is not entitled to plead on behalf of the Principal, but
he can only lead evidence or settle the pleading in the form of
a plaint or written statement or petition.

      In view of the above clear cut pronouncement, it is evident that
a GPA holder can depose and also lead evidence on behalf of his
principal.

whether the Family Court can entertain an
application presented by a legal practitioner in view of the provision
contained in Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
 Keeping the very object behind the Family Courts Act, 1984,
read with the spirit behind Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
the Family Court could have entertained the interlocutory application
in as much as legal practitioners are not totally forbidden from
rendering assistance to the Family Court. 
  Increasingly Family Courts have been noticing that one of the
parties is stationed abroad.  It may not be always possible for such
parties to undertake trip to India, for variety of good reasons.  On the
intended day of examination of a particular party, the proceedings
may not go on, or even get completed possibly, sometimes due to pre-
occupation with any other more pressing work in the Court.  But,
however, technology, particularly, in the Information sector has
improved by leaps and bounds.  Courts in India are also making
efforts to put to use the technologies available.  Skype is one such
facility, which is easily available.  Therefore, the Family Courts are
justified in seeking the assistance of any practicing lawyer to provide
the necessary skype facility in any particular case.  For that purpose,
the parties can be permitted to be represented by a legal practitioner,
who can bring a mobile device.  By using the skype technology,
parties who are staying abroad can not only be identified by the
Family Court, but also enquired about the free will and consent of
such party.  This will enable the litigation costs to be reduced greatly
and will also save precious time of the Court.  Further, the other
party available in the Court can also help the Court in not only
identifying the other party, but would be able to ascertain the
required information.  Accordingly, I direct the Family Court to
entertain the I.A. as it is maintainable and permit the GPA of the 2nd
petitioner in O.P. to represent and depose on behalf of the 2nd
petitioner in the O.P. and the Family Court shall also direct such GPA
or any legal practitioner chosen by him to make available the skype
facility for the Court to interact with the 2nd petitioner, who is staying
at Melbourne, Australia and record the consent of 2nd petitioner and
proceed with the matter thereafter as expeditiously as is possible.
      Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed.  No order as
to costs.
        Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall
also stand closed.

Comments

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.

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.