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 the only principal has personal knowledge and in respect of which only the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. It is further observed that in the chief-affidavit filed by D.W.1, he did not mention that he would depose on behalf of the defendants confining in respect of the acts done by him in exercise of power granted to him by the defendants and in the absence of it, the authorized person filing chief-affidavit on behalf of the defendants to give evidence as D.W.1 is not permissible. In support of the said decision, the Court below has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Limited and others (2005 (2) ALT 57 (SC).As a consequence and following the decision, I.A.No.780 of 2014 is also rejected. It is further held that the petitioners have not taken permission under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice before filing vakalath and written statement through their authorized agent. It is further held that principal cannot be substituted by a power of attorney holder.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said decision of the Court below is erroneous and contrary to the provisions contained in Order XXIX Rule 1 read with Order VI Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Learned counsel further submits that defendants are the juristic persons. Juristic persons cannot depose on their own nor they can stand in the witness box and give evidence. Therefore, some person has to represent such juristic person. Thus special provision is made in Order XXIX with reference to the suits by or against juristic persons. The juristic person can be represented by any person connected to such juristic person. In the instant case, each of the defendants’ companies have given specific authorization in favour of Sri Y.V.H.Prasad to represent on behalf of the defendant companies and in pursuant to such authorisation only, Sri Y.V.H.Prasad has applied for deposing evidence as D.W.1 and also filed chief-affidavit on behalf of the defendants’ companies. Learned counsel further submits that decision relied by the Court below is not applicable to the facts of this case. Learned counsel further submits that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others (1996) 6 SCC 660),any person authorized by a juristic person can represent on behalf of such person and it is not necessary that such person must have personal knowledge with reference to the issue in the suit.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in accordance with the provision contained in Order XXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C., the person who can be authorized to depose on behalf of a juristic person should be either Secretary or Director or other principal Officer of the concerned company