B. PRAKASH RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS case, arising out of a reference made by one of us (Justice B. Prakash Rao), involves a question of law as to whether a person holding Genera! Power of Attorney on behalf of a party to the suit can be examined as a witness on its behalf.

( 2 ) BEFORE dwelling into the question, the facts in brief are that this revision is filed at the instance of the defendant No. 10 aggrieved against the orders rejecting an application filed by him under Rule 32 of the civil Rules of Practice seeking permission to prosecute the case through his General power of Attorney, who is none other than his own son.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/1oth share in the schedule properties, claiming that he along with the defendants 1 to 9 are joint purchasers and the defendant No. 10 is in illegal occupation in collusion with them and constructed a house and the other defendants 11 to 13 are illegal encroachers without any valid purchase. The defendants 1 to 9 admitted the joint purchase but however attributed mischief against the plaintiff in pursuing the layout and permission from the concerned authorities. The petitioner (defendant No. 10) along with defendants 11 and 12 claimed purchase under regular deeds and construction of houses. Similar is the claim on behalf of the defendant No. 13.

( 4 ) THE petitioner who appeared through his Counsel filed the written statement and filed the present application on the ground that he is 70 years old and due to his old age, he executed a General Power of attorney in favour of his son on 22-9-1999 to prosecute the case on his behalf. Contesting the application, the respondent in his counter stated that the petitioner is not so old and is hale and healthy attending to his business in plywood, milk and attending to agriculture and there are no bona fides as he is being shielded from giving evidence in the Court, apart from denying the signature on the deed. The court below by looking into the contents of the deed, rejected the application on the ground that there is variation in the ages shown in the affidavit and the deed viz. , 76 and 70 years respectively. Further in view of the objection raised in the counter and on the sole ground of age, the court below held that he is not entitled to be represented through a General Power of Attorney and it lacks bona fides.

( 5 ) IT is relevant to take note of the Order iii Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure, which reads as follows:"1. Appearances, etc. , may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader:- Any appearance, application or act in or to any court required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such court, may, except wh ere otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf: provided that any such appearance shall, if the court so directs, be made by the party in person. 2. Recognized agents:- The recorgnized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are (a) persons holding powers of attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties; (b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts. "under the aforesaid Rule 1, appearance is contemplated by a party primarily by himself or by any recognized agent or pleader on his behalf. As per Rule 2 the recognized agents include the persons holding Power of attorney and also certain other persons carrying on the avocation for and in the names of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document