ORDER

Order No. 12.03.2024 1. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 17 th January, 2024 (Annexure-8) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in CS No.1288 of 2023 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner/Defendant No.7 for impletion of his General Power of Attorney holder, namely, M/s Devavrat Homes Private Limited as a party to the suit has been rejected.

3. The Petitioner, who appears in person, submits that he has been impleaded as Defendant No.7 in the suit. After purchase of the land in question, he executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of M/s Devavrat Homes Private Limited. Thus, the Power of Attorney holder is a necessary party to the suit and in its absence, the suit cannot be effectively adjudicated. Learned trial Court holding that the land in question was not purchased through the Power of Attorney holder and in its absence the suit can be effectively adjudicated, rejected the petition. Hence, this CMP has been filed.

4. Mr. Devesh, the Petitioner further submits that the act done by his Power of Attorney holder cannot be explained by the // 2 // Petitioner. The same can only be explicitly described before the Court by it. As such, it is a necessary party to the suit. Learned trial Court while rejecting the petition under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC also impliedly closed the door for the Petitioner to examine his Power of Attorney holder as a witness. As such, the impugned order under Annexure-8 is not sustainable. He also relied upon the provisions of Order III Rule 2 CPC and submits that the Power of Attorney holder can be impleaded as a party on behalf of the principal. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha , reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para-18 (relevant portion of which) held as under:-

“ 18. We may now summarise for convenience, the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge:

xx xx xx (b) If the attorney holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions. If the attorney holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be proved.

xx xx xx (d) Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney holder, necessarily the attorney holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorized managers/attorney holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney holders.”

4.1 These aspects were brushed aside by the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order rejecting the petition // 3 // under Order, I Rule 10 (2) CPC. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to direct the Plaintiff to implead M/s Devavrat Homes Private Limited (the Power of Attorney holder of Petitioner/Defendant No.7) as a Defendant to the suit.

5. Upon hearing the Petitioner in person and on perusal of record, it appears that the suit has been filed by Opposite Party No.1 for declaration of right, title, interest, permanent injunction as well as for other reliefs. The Petitioner has been impleaded as Defendant No.7 in the suit. Petitioner/Defendant No.7 claims that he has purchased the suit property. He also claims that a Power of Attorney has been executed by the Petitioner in favour of