JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC’ for short) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2023 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Gondal in Regular Civil Appeal No.12 of 2024 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal in Regular Civil Suit No.581 of 2002 is set aside, for the following substantial questions of law?

“1. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is perverse and ex-facie illegal in view of the settled legal position that power of attorney can’t depose for the plaintiff in respect of the acts done by the plaintiff and not by him; and that too for the acts done before execution of POA?

2. Whether the appeal can be allowed in absence of deposition of the plaintiff himself who is the executor of the power of attorney; as in the POA at Mark 21/9 in favour of Pruthvish S Parmar, it is specifically mentioned that plaintiff-Jyotindrasinhji Vikramsinhji Jadeja is doing administration of the suit property and when another POA holder, who is examined, has no personal knowledge abo