K. SREEDHAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE revision filed against the order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Koppal in O. S. No. 180/97. The Plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. At the stage of evidence, the husband of the plaintiff as power of attorney requested to be examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant objected the request. The trial Court after considering the argument of both the sides placing reliance on the ruling of Rajasthan High Court in Ramprasad v. Harinarayan, AIR 1998 (Raj) 185, rejected the request that the husband of the plaintiff cannot be examined for and on behalf of the plaintiff as a substitute of the plaintiff. But he could be examined only as witness if he is competent to testify. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision is filed.

( 2 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Ruling of Gujarat High Court in Parikh Amratlal Ramanlal Trustee and Administrator of Sanskrit Pathasala Institution v. Rami Mafathlal Girdharilal, AIR 1983 NOC 108 (Guj) wherein it is held thus: The question whether the general power of attorney holder of a party can be a competent w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document