ORDER

This petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 04.06.2018 passed on I.A.No.5/2016 in O.S.No.106/2016 by the Sr. Civil Judge JMFC, Pavagada wherein the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) was rejected.

2. Heard Sri.Girisha V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed an application seeking permission to adduce evidence to prove her case through the GPA holder who is none other than the uncle of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the Trial Court erroneously rejected the said application by the impugned order. It is further submitted that it is always open for the defendants to cross-examine the said witness / GPA holder after the evidence is recorded and if the GPA holder adduces the evidence more than his knowledge, it is open to challenge by way of cross examination. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2018 by permitting the petitioner / plaintiff to adduce evidence through the GPA holder.

4. Though the notice is served on the respondents, they remained absent and are placed exparte.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.106/2016 filed a suit for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1989 passed in O.S.No.105/1985 by the Munsiff and JMFC, Pavagada is not binding on her. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to adduce evidence through the GPA holder. The said application came to be rejected. The Trial Court, by a well considered order, referring to the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has rejected the application.

7. There is no dispute that Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC empowers the agent under the power of attorney to act on behalf of the principal and the act done by the agent in exercise of power granted to him binds the principal. When things stood thus, it is always open for the agent to depose in a suit filed by the principal only to the extent of his knowledge with regard to the suit and not more than that. He cannot do all the acts on behalf of plaintiff. The word 'act' employed in Order III Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, confined only in respect of the 'acts' done by the Power of Attorney Holder in exercise of power granted to him under the power of attorney. The term 'act' would not amount to permission to give evidence on behalf of plaintiff as he cannot have any personal knowledge about the suit.

8. In the instant case, the nature of the suit is that the suit is filed seeking declaration that earlier judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.105/1985 is not binding on the plaintiff. Admittedly, the GPA holder was not party to the earlier suit and he is a stranger to the property in question in the said suit. Hence, he cannot have any personal knowledge with regard to the subject matter of the suit. The Trial Court, taking note of various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in recent decision in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. Anand kumar and others in Civil Appeal No.7840/2023 referring to the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the agent cannot act more than what was conferred on him by the instrument, cannot have any personal knowledge with regard to the dispute between the parties and is not entitled to depose. Taking note of the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered view that the order under challenge, is neither perverse nor contrary to the settled principles of law.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.