V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff. In the suit for damages one Sri Mir Simjuddin sought to file a certified copy of the document under which he was said to have been appointed as the lawful General Power of Attorney by the defendant in the suit. He filed an application Under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice requesting permission of the Court to act, conduct and defend the defendant in the suit. The Court below allowed the application. Questioning the same this revision petition is filed.

( 2 ) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the identity of the person who is said to have executed the said document was in doubt, the Court below ought not to have allowed the application. In support of his contention he has taken me through an order of this Court passed in C. R. P. No. 48/96. Learned Counsel for the respondent however submits that there was a presumption under law when once a notarised power of attorney is produced it is presumed to be true and unless the said presumption is rebutted by adducing necessary evidence the Court has to presume that the document was true and hence the application was rightly allowed. Admitted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document