IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3920 of 2025 Dated: 06.02.2026 Between Polepally Haritha and another.

…PETITIONERS And Guduru Tirumalesh Died Per LRs and others.

…RESPONDENTS

ORDER

The revision petition is filed challenging the order dated

07.10.2025 in IA.No.168 of 2025 in O.S.No.75 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.167 of 2018) on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as arrayed in O.S.No.75 of 2022.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a petition in IA.No.168 of 2025 in O.S.No.75 of 2022 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to eschew the chief examination filed by the General Power of Attorney Holder as P.W.1 and to reject the chief examination of P.W.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS. v. HARTAR SINGH SANGHA, (2010) 10 SCC 512 and submitted that the GPA holder can depose only on the basis of personal knowledge but he cannot speak on behalf of the plaintiffs or other witnesses.

5. In the application filed in IA.No.168 of 2025, it was contended that the GPA Holder, Bollam Dayakar, is not competent to appear as witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in the capacity of the plaintiffs under the alleged GPA dated 20.12.2021. The GPA does not authorize the power of attorney holder to enter into the witness box and such power cannot be delegated to the GPA holder.

6. In the counter filed by the plaintiffs it was contended that GPA was appointed to look after the affairs of the plaintiffs in Court cases and the GPA holder filed a petition along with the GPA to permit him to represent the plaintiffs No.2 to 4. The GPA holder gave evidence as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked.

The instant petition is filed only to drag the proceedings.

7. The trial Court by taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS.’s case (1 supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants, dismissed the application by holding that the citations relied upon by the

defendants are not applicable to the present case. The trial Court also extracted second page of the GPA wherein it is stated that it is not possible for the plaintiffs to look after the case in O.S.No.75 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.167 of 2018) and they are appointing the GPA holder to appear, file counter and written statement on their behalf and also to compromise, compound or withdraw the cases and to refer to the cases to arbitration, to give evidence etc. Thus, by recording that the plaintiffs have delegated their power to the GPA holder, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Further, it was also recorded by the trial Court that if the defendants feel that the GPA holder is not in a position to know the suit transaction, it may cause loss only to the plaintiffs and that the defendants would get opportunity to cross-examine the GPA holder.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on paras 15 to 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS.’s case (1 supra).

9. In Para 18, the Supreme Court has summarized as to the person who should give evidence in regard to the matters having personal knowledge. For the sake of convenience, Para 18 is extracted below:

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

(a) An attorney-holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit.

(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 a