1. Heard Sri Karanam Ramesh counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Srinivas for the respondent.

2. In C.R.P.No.555 of 2015 petitioners challenge the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, dated 19.06.2014 in I.A.No.212 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2012 allowing I.A., filed by the plaintiff in the suit holding that chief-affidavit filed by D.W.1 in lieu of chief-examination and the decision of D.W.1 to depose on behalf of the defendants’ companies is not valid in law and, therefore, he cannot represent and thus chief-affidavit is not permissible.

3. In C.R.P.No.537 of 2015 petitioners challenge the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu dated 20.10.2014 in I.A.No.780 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2012 in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission of deponent to represent on behalf of the defendants’ companies.

4. As the issue for consideration in both the revision petitions is same, both revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.

5. The Court below holds that D.W.1 as General Power of Attorney holder cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and in respect of matters of which