ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 09.03.2022 allowed the petition in I.A.No.94 of 2022 in O.S.No.469 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile)-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, VIzianangaram, which was filed under Order VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff to receive the documents i.e., authorization letter (dated NIL) of the Deputy General Manager, (Visakh Retail Region) of Hindusthan Petrolium Corporation Limitation and marking the same as exhibit on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The deponent of the affidavit by name Y.Sri Venkateswarlu who is witness i.e., he is duly authorized by Corporation and is looking after the suit in O.S.No.469 of 2016 and that he has well acquaintance with the facts of the case. He further stated that the suit is coming up for trial and that he had recently before filing of the petition obtained authorization letter from the Deputy General Manager vide the said document to look after the matter in the suit on behalf of the plaintiff and that the said document is very much important and essential to file it in evidence. To prove the case to arrive at just and proper conclusion in the matter and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants in the document.

3. The petition was opposed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant by filing counter stating that the petitioner did not state how the Court can come to a just conclusion basing on the documents styled as “TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN” and further that the person who gave the affidavit has no locus standi and if at all the plaintiff wants to examine any of its officials as witness on its behalf the plaintiff has to specifically authorize in this regard with full particulars, but the proposed document lacks all its dates. It is further stated that the provision of law under Order VII Rule 14 CPC has no application to this document.

4. After hearing both parties and by recording the contention of both sides in the petition and counter, the trial Court allowed the petition with a brief note that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is inclined to allow the petition.

5. Having aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed by the respondents/defendants on the ground that the document does not contain basic details, including the date and it cannot be received and it cannot be marked and further that the person who filed the affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff has no authority to depose on behalf of the plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the same as in the grounds of revision and the counter. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the deponent of the affidavit is proposed to be examined as witness on behalf of plaintiff and for that purpose the document is required. He further submitted that in the event of any other step to be taken for the representation of the plaintiff by any of its officer, separate steps would be taken. He further submitted that since the present petition is filed only to receive the document on file to enable the plaintiff to file it in evidence so as to examine his officer as its witness, a detailed examination of the contents of the document are not required at this juncture.

7. For the better appreciation of the controversy, the relevant contents of the document are excerpted herein :

“TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCENRN We hereby authorize Sri Yanjamandra Sri Venkateswarlu, (employee No.31967340) Assistant Manager-Sales, Vizianagaram Sales Area, HPCL for attending Court in O.S.No.469 of 2016 on behalf of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited”.

8. The plaintiff filed the suit being represented by its Chief Regional Manager-Retail with the permission of Court and now the deponent says in common parlance of a layman that he is duly authorized to look after the suit. The document authorized him for attend