THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2298 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri V. S. Sudhaker, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Shaik Shafee Ur Raheman, learned counsel for the respondents.

Perused the entire record.

2. This revision is preferred aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 10.11.2023 in I.A.No.825 of 2023 in O.S.No.1408 of 2019 passed by the learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (‘trial Court), wherein a petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. to stop General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) holder of plaintiffs, to depose on their behalf as P.W.1.

3. The main suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs herein seeking relief of recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and for damages. In the said suit, at the time of leading evidence, the GPA holder of the plaintiffs was proposed to be examined as P.W.1. At that juncture, the I.A. under revision was filed to prevent the GPA holder from adducing evidence on behalf of plaintiffs to substitute the main parties by placing reliance on Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

4. According to the revision petitioner, the GPA holder is not entitled to appear as witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of that party. A party cannot step back by not entering into witness box and not subject himself to cross-examine. On that premise, the revision petitioner opposed the examination of GPA holder as P.W.1 to adduce on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents.

5. The respondents opposed the petition alleging that the suit itself is filed through GPA holder by filing petition under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice along with affidavit under Rule 33 of the Civil Rules of Practice and the said GPA is still subsisting. The GPA holder is well aware with the facts of the case and therefore, competent to adduce evidence on behalf of respondents. It is further alleged that the revision petitioner may take advantage of non appearance of the respondents and cross examine the GPA holder as P.W.1, but may not restrain him from entering into witness box as P.W.1.

6. Upon considering the I.A. under revision, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. leading to filing of the present revision.

7. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the evidence of GPA holder cannot be accepted and it is also pleaded that GPA holder must not be permitted to give evidence on behalf of the respondents herein.

8. During arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondents herein are avoiding entering the witness box only to avoid cross-examination and as such they are getting the evidence recorded through GPA holder, who does not have personal knowledge of the case and therefore, opposed examination of the GPA holder as P.W.1.

9. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the evidentiary value of the GPA holder can be considered by the trial Court at the time of pronouncing of the judgment, but cannot prevent him from adducing evidence on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that Rules 32 and 33 of the Civil Rules of Practice enable the GPA holder to represent the case of the principal and also evidence can be given by GPA holder, if he has personal knowledge of the facts of the case. In the said circumstances, the GPA holder cannot be precluded from adducing evidence on behalf of the respondents.

10. Rules 32 and 33 of the Civil Rules of Practice are enabling provisions where the GPA holder when is authorized by his principal is permitted to appear, represent, prosecute and depose before the Court. Further, there are catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held that GPA holder is competent witness to depose on behalf of his principal when he or she has personal knowledge about the facts of the case. A principal may choose not to enter the witness box in his own discretion and at his own risk. The evidentiary value of the GP