K. MADHUMATHI Vs. K. RAMACHANDER RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.07.2018 in I.A.No. 300 of 2018 in O.S.No. 1694 of 2010 passed by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit for perpetual injunction with respect to the suit schedule property. The I.A. was purported to be filed under Rule 32 (2) of the Civil Rules of Practice.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that she has been suffering from ailments, hence, unable to prosecute the case effectively on her own / to appear before the Court to give evidence; that as a matter of fact, her husband is looking after the affairs of the property since beginning and he is well-versed with the same and the legal proceedings and in view of her inability, she had executed a deed of General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband Sri K. Prem Ra, S/o Sri K. Laksman authorizing him to act on her behalf and he is the only competent person to take care of the suit. Hence, she prayed the Court to permit the General Power of Attorney holder to represent her and prosecute the case on her behalf. The prayer in the petition reads as "the Court may be pleased to pass an order permitting Sri K. Prem Raj, S/o late Sr K. Laxman, age about 50 years, R/o 2-3-529/1/20, Bapu Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, the husband and the General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner / plaintiff in the suit to represent her before the Hon'ble Court and to prosecute the case on her behalf by giving evidence, in the interest of justice.....". The I.A. was resisted by raising an objection that a GPA holder cannot give evidence as a plaintiff and the ill-health claimed by the petitioner is a falsity and that the IA was filed only to drag the suit which is of 2010. It is contended that provisions under Rules 1 & 2 of Order III of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 empower the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. The word "act" employed in Rules 1 & 2 confines only in respect of "acts" done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term "act" would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. It is settled law that giving deposition on oath as a power of attorney holder of a party is not a part of pleadings and rather it is a part of procedure for proving a case by examining a competent witness.