(1) This Court ordered notice before admission on 29. 12. 2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period in CRPMP no. 7744 of 2008, which is being extended from time to time.

(2) The matter is coming up for admission.

(3) Heard Sri K. S. Gopalakrishnan, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri K. V. Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent.

(4) This civil revision petition is filed against an order, dated 27. 11. 2008 made in ia No. 1297 of 2007 in OS No. 163 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, srikakulam. The said application was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein under order 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice praying for permission to the General Power of Attorney Holder to represent the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff, who filed the suit is the son-in-law of the General Power of Attorney Holder and his son-in-law had been to U. S. A. for his higher studies and he is aware of the agreement of sale and in order to prosecute the case further, the original plaintiff executed the General power of Attorney on 6. 8. 2005 in U. S. A. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant disputing the genuineness of the same, and also making certain allegations against the plaintiff relating to the pendency of N. B. W and certain other aspects. The learned Judge having formulated the point for consideration at Paragraph no. 3 referring to Section 85 of the Indian evidence Act and also the relevant provisions under both the Indian Evidence Act and also the Indian Registration Act, recorded reasons in detail at Paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 and ultimately, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition had been filed by the revision petitioner/defendant.

(5) Sri K. S. Gopalakrishnan, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner made certain submissions that allowing the application by the learned judge cannot be sustained since the General power of Attorney itself is not valid and further pointed out to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Civil rules of Practice and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order cannot be sustained.

(6) On the contrary, Sri K. V. Subba reddy, the learned Counsel representing me respondent/plaintiff would maintain that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, it

cannot be said that the order under challenge is illegal. At the best, it may be a curable irregularity and definitely not an illegality and that at any rate, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, all the other merits and demerits may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. But, however, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(7) Both the learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions.

(8) Heard the learned Counsel.

(9) In Bhimappa and others v. Allisab and others, AIR 2006 Kar. 231, the learned Judge of Karnataka High Court observed at Paragraphs 11 and 14 as hereunder :

"The proposition of law about the competence of a person to testify as a witness is governed by Section 118 of the evidence Act. Giving evidence before a court of law is an act within the meaning of the said provision. However, everyone is not entitled or competent to give evidence as witness before a Court unless one fulfils the requirements of the qualifications envisaged in Section 118 of the Evidence act. There is no express bar made in the provisions of C. P. C. to debar the Power of attorney to be examined as a witness on behalf of the parties to the proceedings. Power of Attorney is a competent witness and is entitled to appear as such. His evidence cannot be refused to be taken into consideration on the ground that the parties to the suit i. e. , plaintiff or defendant do not choose to appear as witness in the witness box. The question whether the general Power of Attorney Holder of a party can be c