ORDER:

Defendants in Suit filed the above revision petition against the docket order dated 21.07.2022 in O.S.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, Nellore District.

2. Respondent/Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.11 of 2017 for recovery of amount. Plaintiff is a proprietary concern represented by M/s Hitech Minerals, Hyderabad represented by its sole proprietor D.V.Mahalakshmi, wife of Rajini Kumar. As can be seen from the material papers filed along with the revision, suit was filed by M/s Hitech Minerals, Hyderabad and GPA holder presented the plaint. I.A.was also filed under Rule

32 of Civil Rules of Practice.

3. GPA Holder filed affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination and when the suit is coming for cross-examination, defendant raised objections saying that GPA holder cannot depose the facts prior to execution of GPA, trial Court by docket order dated 21.07.2022 negatived the said objections. Against the same, present revision is filed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that GPA was executed on 11.02.2017 whereas GPA holder filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination deposing the facts prior to 11.02.2017. The GPA holder cannot depose the facts prior to execution of the GPA. He would also contend that proprietor cannot rely on the order dated 19.11.2018 in CRP 6642 of 2018 on the file of the Composite High Court at Hyderabad.

6. The suit is filed for recovery of amount. Suit was instituted by GPA holder representing sole proprietary concern. M/s Hitech Minerals, Hyderabad rep by its GPA holder and proprietor are wife and husband. However, GPA dated

11.02.2017 is filed. It is settled law that GPA holder can depose the facts subsequent to the GPA not prior to GPA.

7. In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Ltd1 it was held as under:

date of execution of the GPA=.

8. In the case on hand, GPA holder herein is husband of proprietor of plaintiff. Apart from power of attorney holder, husband can depose on behalf of wife under Sec 120 of Evidence Act. If the GPA holder deposes beyond GPA, during the course examination, the trial Court shall record questions and answers. There is no infirmity in the order of the Court below warranting interference under Art 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

1 (2005) 2 SCC 217

__________________________

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 18.11.2022 KA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2334 of 2022 Date: 18.11.2022 KA