JAYAPRAKASH RAO S/O LATE KRISHNOJI RAO Vs. SWAMINATHA RAO @ SAYINATHA RAO S/O LATE KRISHNOJI RAO AND SMT. GIRIJA W/O SWAMITHARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff in O.S. 416/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bhadravathi, aggrieved by the order dt. 3/2/2010 allowing Defendant's I.A. No. 9 under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure r/w Order 3 Rule 2(d) of Code of Civil Procedure enclosing a power of attorney, filed I.A. No. 10 under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure to modify the order permitting the GPA to conduct (Incase, which when rejected by order dt. 12/7/2010, has preferred these writ petitions.

(2.) IT appears that the general power of attorney holder for the Defendants filed the GPA into the court on 24/7/2009 whence by order dt. 4/8/2009, GPA holder was permitted to conduct the case on behalf of the Defendants. That order was recalled by order dt. 21/10/2009 allowing the Plaintiffs I.A. No. 7, on the premise of non -compliance of Civil Rules of Practice. The Defendants filed I.A. No. 9 under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure r/w Order 3 Rule 2(d) Code of Civil Procedure to permit them to be represented by the GPA holder and to prosecute the suit, which was opposed by contending that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to serve copies of LA. on the agent as he had no fixed place of abode; that the GPA holder is in the habit of conducting cases for others having appeared before courts in 4 or 5 cases and; being a practicing lawyer, has not suspended practice. The court below having regard to the fact that there is no law denying a party to appoint a power of attorney holder to represent him in a court of law and prosecute the proceedings, allowed I.A. 9 by order dt. 3/2/2010. The Plaintiff sought modification of that order by filing I.A. No. 10, specifically asserting that the power of attorney holder is invested with the authority to do all acts that can be done by the executor, though the Defendants are capable of conducting their case. In addition it was stated that the GPA holder if enters the witness box would depose to facts which are within his knowledge and not facts within the special knowledge of the Defendants. So also, it was contended that since the terms of the general power of attorney empower the holder to alienate and convey the suit schedule property, requires registration and having not done so, acceptance of the GPA was impermissible. The trial Court did not find favour with the Petitioner's contentions to modify the order on I.A. No. 9, and accordingly rejected the application In -order dt. 12/7/2010.

(3.) THE Defendants, it cannot but be said, have a right to appoint a power of attorney holder of their choice to appear for them and prosecute the suit before the court below. Whether the evidence of the general power of attorney holder, when tendered is admissible or not, ought to be decided at the Stage when it is necessary by the court below. So also the contention that the general power of attorney holder would tender evidence to the limited extent, of his knowledge, does not require a consideration at this stage. Petitions devoid of merit are accordingly rejected.