Point of Law: Plaintiff has not appeared in witness box and statement given by GPA holder cannot be substituted for statement of plaintiff and for this reason also adverse inference can also be drawn against plaintiff for not appearing in the witness box to prove her case.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.07.2018 in I.A. No. 300 of 2018 in O.S. No. 1694 of 2010 passed by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit for perpetual injunction with respect to the suit schedule property. The I.A. was purported to be filed under Rule 32 (2) of the Civil Rules of Practice.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she has been suffering from ailments, hence, unable to prosecute the case effectively on her own/to appear before the Court to give evidence; that as a matter of fact, her husband is looking after the affairs of the property since beginning and he is well-versed with the same and the legal proceedings and in view of her inability, she had executed a deed of General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband Sri. K. Prem Ra S/o Sri. K. Laksman authorizing him to act on her behalf and he is the only competent person to take care of the suit. Hence, she prayed the Court to permit the General Power of Attorney holder to represent her and prosecute the case on her behalf. The prayer in the petition reads as “the Court may be pleased to pass an order permitting Sri. K. Prem Raj S/o Late Sr. K. Laxman, age about 50 years R/o 2-3-529/1/20, Bapu Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, the husband and the General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit to represent her before the Hon’ble Court and to prosecute the case on her behalf by giving evidence, in the interest of justice......” The I.A. was resisted by raising an objection that a GPA holder cannot give evidence as a plaintiff and the ill-health claimed by the petitioner is a falsity and that the IA was filed only to drag the suit which is of 2010. It is contended that provisions under Rules 1 and 2 of Order III of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 empower the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. The word “act” employed in Rules 1 and 2 confines only in respect of “acts” done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term “act” would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. It is settled law that giving deposition on oath as a power of attorney holder of a party is not a part of pleadings and rather it is a part of procedure for proving a case by examining a competent witness.

4. The learned Judge, after considering respective submissions, making reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Industrial Bank Ltd. (2005) 2 SCC 217 dismissed the I.A. holding that a GPA holder is empowered to give evidence as a witness but not as the plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Shyam S. Agarwal contends that refusal of I.A. is contrary to law. He asserts that the power of attorney holder was the one who has been prosecuting the case all along and attending the affairs on behalf of the plaintiff-wife. He pleads that the plaintiff is indisposed and is unable to attend the Court to give evidence. Placing reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Shambhu Dutt Shastri vs. State of Rajasthan, 1986 (2) WLN 713, the learned counsel contends that in the said case, PW-1 - power of attorney holder deposed on behalf of the plaintiff.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the Supreme Court judgment, the legal position is settled and power of attorney holder cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge and depose as if the plaintiff in his/her place.

7. Having gone through the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner as there is nothing in the said judgment supporting the point advanced on her behalf. In Para 13 of the said judgment, it was noted that PW-1 - power of attorney holder had stated that there was