( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dt, 26-6-2000 passed in i. A. No. 345 of 2000 in O. S. No. 173 of 1995 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) IN the said LA. the prayer of the respondent who is the defendant in the suit is that the evidence of the plaintiff may be treated as closed and a witness proposed to be examined on behalf of the plaintiff as p. W. 2 may not be permitted to be examined.

( 3 ) THE instant Interlocutory application proceeds on the ground that the proposed witness who happens to be the husband of the plaintiff (who has been examined as p. W. 1) is also the G. P. A. of the said plaintiff. The contention is that a G. P. A. of the plaintiff cannot be allowed to be examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner herein contends that this view is supported by a judgment of this Court in K. Bhwrathy vs. Authority under Section 50 of A. P. S. E. Act- cum-Labour Officer, The argument of the learned Counsel is based on Order III rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. , which is extracted below. Appearances, etc. . may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader,1. 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 where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the tune 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. Recognised Agents. 2. The recognised 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.

( 5 ) A reading of the above provision would show that any appearance, application or act in or to any Court required or authorized by law to be made or done shall be made by party in person or by his recognised agent or by a pleader on his behalf. The proviso contemplates that notwithstanding this provision the Court may direct a party to make such appearance or application in person in appropriate case. Rule 2 of the Order III as seen above contemplates that recognised agent mentioned in Rule 1 of Order III shall be only among the categories specified therein. According to this provision the recognised agent mentioned in Rule 1 of Order III can be a person holding power of attorney who has been authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of the parties as contemplated under the said rule.

( 6 ) IT is apparent that Order III Rules 1 and 2 constitute an enabling provision under which a party which is required to make an appearance or an application or to do certain thing in connection with a proceeding in which he is a party can also make such appearance or application or act through a person holding his power of attorney. What it provides is that where the law requires that an appearance, application or act be made by a party, it shall be sufficient compliance if such appearance, application or act is made by his power of attorney. This provision has nothing to do with the examination of witnesses by a party to proceedings.

( 7 ) IN the judgment of this Court cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner what has been laid down is that in view of the provisions in Order III Rule 2 C. P. C. a party to a proceedings can appoin