ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

Though notices were served on Respondent Nos.1 and 2, no appearance has been made.

2. The revision petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, the first petitioner is represented by his father as Power of Attorney Holder under a registered document, dated 03.04.2010. When the father of the plaintiffs filed affidavit in chief examination, the trial Court upheld the objection raised by the counsel for the defendants that General Power of Attorney cannot be permitted to depose before the Court in place of the first plaintiff. Aggrieved by this same, this revision petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the first plaintiff has been residing in Singapore and thus, gave his Power of Attorney to his father, who is looking after the affairs and thus, the father can give evidence as a witness for the plaintiffs. Both the plaintiffs are brothers.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on decision of the Apex court in Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs., Vs., Hartar Singh Sangha1, wherein the Apex Court has summarised where the evidence of Attorney Holder can be permitted, at