The authority of a Special Power of Attorney holder is limited to prosecution and does not extend to giving evidence on behalf of the principal.

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction and to quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 in OS No.198/2011 on IA No.11 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devahanahalli, as per Annexure-A to the writ petition and consequently to quash the order dated 14.07.2023 on IA No.12 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, as per Annexure-B to the writ petition.

b) To pass such other order/s as deems fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. It is evident from the record that IA No.11 was moved by the petitioner, who was the defendant No.4 in the suit seeking appointment of the Special Power of Attorney holder at the stage of defendants' evidence. It had been stated that, due to old age health conditions, the defendant No.4 has appointed as the Special Power of Attorney holder. The Court found that the application is not maintainable as the defendant No.4 did not assign valid reasons and did not produce the relevant documents stating his inconvenience in appearing before the Court. It is stated in the order that the defendant No.4 only at the time of giving his evidence is seeking to appear through the Special Power of Attorney holder; that the defendant No.4 did not specifically seek for appointment of his Special Power of Attorney holder to give evidence on his behalf, but he sought appointment of the Special Power of Attorney holder only to appear and to prosecute his case. IA No.11 was therefore allowed by the Court permitting the defendant No.4 to prosecute the above suit through his Special Power of Attorney holder, like consulting the advocates and not to give evidence. However, the defendant No.4 was not permitted to entrust or delegate his power to the Special Power of Attorney holder.

4. I have perused the IA No.11 and find that the sole prayer made therein was to permit the Special Power of Attorney to appear on behalf of the defendant No.4 to prosecute the case. In his affidavit in support of the aforesaid IA, it has been stated by the petitioner that, he is residing at Tada, Nellur District, Andhra Pradesh and due to his old age health reasons, post COVID Symptoms, he is unable to travel and attend the Court proceedings and hence he has executed the Special Power of Attorney in favour of Sri. A. Sreenivasulu, who is his manager for looking after the subject property since from the date of transaction of the property.

5. No other document has been filed in support of the aforesaid affidavit either as to the age of health condition of the defendant No.4. As such, I do not find any error in the order of the Court concerned in rejecting IA No.11.

6. As far as IA No.12 is concerned, evidently it merely sought review of the order passed by the Court allowing IA No.4. IA No.11 has been allowed in terms of the relief sought in the IA. This petition lacks merit and it is therefore dismissed.