A GPA holder can represent a party in all aspects, including giving evidence, but cannot plead the cause before the court. Skype technology can be used for reconciliation proceedings to save time and cost.

JUDGMENT :

C Praveen Kumar, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2019 passed in I.A. No.991 of 2018 in F.C.O.P. No.634 of 2017 on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge, Krishna, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. to set aside the dismissal order dated 10.6.2018 and to restore the main petition and permit the G.P.A. holder to contest the petition proceedings came to be allowed while directing the petitioner to appear in person for reconciliation.

2. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, there is no representation on her behalf.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. The short point that arises for consideration is, "Whether the petitioner can be allowed to be represented by G.P.A. Holder for reconciliation?"

5. The issue is no more res integra in view of the order dated 17.6.2015 passed in C.R.P. No.1621 of 2015 by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh. It was also a case pending before the Family Court. The petitioners and respondents therein sought divorce by mutual consent, but husband in the said case was not able to attend the court personally as he was in Australia pursuing his career. He gave Power of Attorney to a person known to him to plead after the expiry of the mandatory period for giving divorce by mutual consent. After referring to various judgments of the Apex Court and also interpreting the meaning of the word 'pleading' and 'practice', the learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, permitted to examine the person who is in Australia by using skype technology.

6. In Podelly Chinna Chinnanna v. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna and others, 2003 SCJOnline(AP) 1040 this Court, while dealing with the similar issue, held as under :

"11. ......Therefore, there is no bar for a power of attorney to represent the principal unless the law does not intend, either expressly or impliedly. The provisions of Powers of Attorney Act has to be read with the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Rules of Practice, which amply substitutes the power of attorney in the place of a party. Section 60 of the Evidence Act insists oral evidence to be direct viz., the best evidence available should be brought before the Court. However, while weighing the evidence, Court can certainly take note of absence or withholding of best evidence and can draw inference. There is no doubt that parties to the proceedings have to appear and give evidence. A Power of Attorney surrogates a party in all aspects, including giving of evidence. As contemplated under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, statements made by an agent constitute a valid admission.....

14. In view of the aforesaid principles and the provisions, it cannot be said that any restrictions can be imported which are not contemplated under the law. The very expression 'act' takes in every step by the G.P.A., on behalf of the executant and further it gets buttressed by the preceding expressions 'appearance' and 'applications'. However, the extent of credence to be given to the statement of a General Power of Attorney is totally a different consideration and it turns on each individual case. In a given circumstance, the non-examination of the principal or withholding himself may be fatal but the Court cannot throw out the evidence of a power of attorney on behalf of the principal, which has to be tested on the same lines as any witness subject to the principles under the law of evidence. In a given case, if the statement of a power of attorney cannot be relied on as not being a direct evidence, necessary presumption can always be drawn against the party for not coming before the Court. There is also no bar, if the circumstances warrant, to examine the party himself in the Court on a commission if he is otherwise disabled. But