A GPA holder can testify about facts within their knowledge, even if not the original signatory to the documents, ensuring justice is served.

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.

2.

C.R.P.No.1580 of 2024 is filed challenging the order dated 09.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.700 of 2023 in O.S.No.196 of 2018 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir.

3.

C.R.P.No.1581 of 2024 is filed challenging the order dated 12.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.403 of 2023 in O.S.No.196 of 2018 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir.

4. The brief facts of the cases are that the trial court dismissed the applications of the petitioner, I.A.No.403 of 2023 and I.A.No.700 of 2023, which sought to permit Kankanth Reddy Ramesh Reddy to come on record as the GPA holder and represent the defendant in the suit. The trial Court held that the respondent/plaintiff wanted to confront the alleged agreement of sale to the person who executed it, not to the petitioner who had no knowledge of the agreement. The trial Court observed that the petitioner was not the right person to depose about the agreement, as he was not aware of its contents, and therefore, declined to permit him to represent the earlier GPA holder, Mitta Srinivas Reddy. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions are filed.

5. Heard Sri Krishna Murthy Devarakonda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders of the trial Court in dismissing the applications of the petitioner is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The direction of the Court to the petitioner to examine the earlier GPA holder is arbitrary and unjustified, as the GPA dated 18-04- 2023 clearly appoints the present GPA holder in place of the earlier GPA holder. He further submitted that the Court gave undue weight to the version of the respondent/plaintiff, ignoring the admissions of PW1 and PW2, which contradict the contention of the respondent. The trial Court also failed to appreciate the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, which establishes that the respondent failed to prove their contentions. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Court by allowing these civil revision petitions.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the contract in question was between the plaintiff and the earlier GPA holder, who was the signatory to the documents. Therefore, the earlier GPA holder is the appropriate person to provide evidence on behalf of the defendant, as he is the GPA holder and signatory to the documents. Confronting the disputed documents with the present GPA holder, who lacks knowledge of the matter, would serve no purpose. Consequently, the trial court correctly dismissed the petition, and these revision petitions lacks merit and the same are liable to be dismissed.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and has reviewed the material available on record. It is evident that the dismissal of the applications of the petitioner was unwarranted. The petitioner had adduced sufficient reasons for seeking to come on record as the new GPA holder, including the earlier GPA holder's illness, advanced age of 82 years, and his inability to attend court due to undergoing heart surgery in the USA. Despite these compelling circumstances, the trial court took an overly restrictive view and held that the petitioner, as the new GPA holder, could not depose about facts within the personal knowledge of the earlier GPA holder.

9. This Court, however, takes a more nuanced view and holds that the petitioner can be permitted to give evidence to the extent of facts within their knowledge, even if the petitioner is not the executor of the documents. Further, it is a well-established principle that a GPA holder can give evidence about facts within his/her know