RANGAL LINGAIAH Vs. SAJJALA VENKAT REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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support of the said petition, it is not the respondent's case in the counter that the said Power of Attorney deed was withdrawn by the original plaintiff.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 holder. 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.

(3.) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.