RULE 32 OF CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE - POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - PLEADINGS OF SUBSISTING = whether a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is competent to give evidence as such on behalf of the plaintiff, = it can be considered after taking evidence and while giving judgment as it is a question of fact ; It is nextly contended that the Power of Attorney holder in a petition filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice did not allege that the Power of Attorney deed executed in his favour continues and is subsisting..... is it fatal = No.
PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9739
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
C.R.P.No.5750 of 2002
25.03.2013
Ranga Lingaiah
Sajjala Venkat Reddy
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the respondents: Sri Aravinda Rao Verapally
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?CITATIONS:
1.2002 (6) ALD 101
ORDER
The question
whether a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is
competent to give evidence as such on behalf of the plaintiff,
is a question of fact.
If the Power of Attorney holder has known the facts relating to the suit
personally, then he is always at liberty to give evidence either as Power of
Attorney holder or in his personal capacity.
The contention that Power of
Attorney holder cannot depose the facts which are within the personal knowledge
of the plaintiff, who is his principal, depends upon the material deposed by
such a witness, who is a Power of Attorney holder.
Value to be attached to such
a witness depends on assessment of contents of his deposition after the contents
are recorded.
Therefore, the Power of Attorney holder cannot be precluded from
deposing in the suit on behalf of the plaintiff
in terms of Ismath Ahmedizade
Mahmoodi Abidi v Kurshidummisa Begum1.
This Court cannot pre-judge the issue,
it is for ultimate assessment of its value by the trial Court at the time of final
disposal of the suit.
It is nextly contended that the Power of Attorney holder in a petition filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice did not allege that the Power of Attorney deed executed in his favour continues and is subsisting.
Though the
said words are absent in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it
is not the respondent's case in the counter that the said Power of Attorney deed
was withdrawn by the original plaintiff.
The said contention of the
petitioner's counsel remains to be too technical in the absence of denial of
subsistence of the power of attorney deed in favour of the Power of Attorney
holder.
After all, the Power of Attorney holder is no other than son of the
plaintiff herself. Son of the plaintiff is a competent witness to depose on
behalf of the plaintiff and to speak the facts within his knowledge,
irrespective of existence of General Power of Attorney deed in his favour. I do
not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
25th March, 2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
C.R.P.No.5750 of 2002
25.03.2013
Ranga Lingaiah
Sajjala Venkat Reddy
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the respondents: Sri Aravinda Rao Verapally
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?CITATIONS:
1.2002 (6) ALD 101
ORDER
The question
whether a Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is
competent to give evidence as such on behalf of the plaintiff,
is a question of fact.
If the Power of Attorney holder has known the facts relating to the suit
personally, then he is always at liberty to give evidence either as Power of
Attorney holder or in his personal capacity.
The contention that Power of
Attorney holder cannot depose the facts which are within the personal knowledge
of the plaintiff, who is his principal, depends upon the material deposed by
such a witness, who is a Power of Attorney holder.
Value to be attached to such
a witness depends on assessment of contents of his deposition after the contents
are recorded.
Therefore, the Power of Attorney holder cannot be precluded from
deposing in the suit on behalf of the plaintiff
in terms of Ismath Ahmedizade
Mahmoodi Abidi v Kurshidummisa Begum1.
This Court cannot pre-judge the issue,
it is for ultimate assessment of its value by the trial Court at the time of final
disposal of the suit.
It is nextly contended that the Power of Attorney holder in a petition filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice did not allege that the Power of Attorney deed executed in his favour continues and is subsisting.
Though the
said words are absent in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it
is not the respondent's case in the counter that the said Power of Attorney deed
was withdrawn by the original plaintiff.
The said contention of the
petitioner's counsel remains to be too technical in the absence of denial of
subsistence of the power of attorney deed in favour of the Power of Attorney
holder.
After all, the Power of Attorney holder is no other than son of the
plaintiff herself. Son of the plaintiff is a competent witness to depose on
behalf of the plaintiff and to speak the facts within his knowledge,
irrespective of existence of General Power of Attorney deed in his favour. I do
not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
25th March, 2013
Comments
Post a Comment