Heard Sri v. S. Sudhaker

Mr. Najaf Ali Khan @ Akber, S/o Late Mr. Hussain Ali Khan, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No.22-7-533, Purnai Haveli, Hyderabad. Mr. Syed Mohd Ali Khan @ Hadi, S/o Late Abbas Ali Khan, Aged about. 48 years, Occ . Busniess, R/o Mir Alam AGuest House, Talab Bagh, Hyderabad Both Rep. by their GPA Holder, Mohd. Afzal, S/o. Shaik Habeeb ur Rahman, Rl/o. H.No.19-3-1077 lN11 lA,Sarfaraz Jung Colony, Jahanuma, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Plaintiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further Proceedings in O.S. No.1408 of 2019 on the file of the XVlll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V S SUDHAKER Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SHAIK SHAFEE UR RAHEMAN The Court made the following: ORDER { l l i a l I I t I I I i t i THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE RENU1 A YARA CML REVISION PETITION No.2298 o t 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri V. S. Sudhaker, learned counsel for the evision petitioner and Sri Shaik Shafee Ur Raheman, leamed counsel ti,r the respondents. Perused the entire record.

2. This revision is preferred aggrieved by the disrr issal order dated

10.11.2023 in I.A.No.825 of 2023 in O.S.No. 1408 ol l( l9 passed by the leamed XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil lourt, Hyderabad ('trial Court), wherein a petition filed under Section l5l of C.P.C. to stop General Power of Attorney ('GPA') holder of plaintilfs. o depose on their behalf as P.W. l.

3. The main suit was filed by the respondents/plainri I's herein seeking relief of recovery of possession, rnandatory injunction art I for damages. In the said suit, at the timc of leading evidence, the (il 'A holder of the plaintiffs was proposed to be examined as P.W.l. At tl'ur juncture, the I.A. under revision was filed to prevent the GPA holder fronr r dducing evidence on behalf of plaintiffs to substitute the main parties by' I acing reliance on Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice. _ RY,J cRP 2298 2024 4- According to the revision petitioner, the GpA holder is not entitled to i 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.l to adduce on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents.

5. The respondenrs opposed the petition alleging that the suit itself is filed through GPA hotder by firing 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 ofnon appearance of the respondents and cross examine the GPA holder as P.w-l, but may nor restrain him from entering into witness box as P.W.1.

6. Upon considering the t.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 fafiiot be accepted and it is also pleaded that GpA holder musr nor be permitted to give evidence on behalfofthe respondents herein. 2 ---' .z' i,/

8. During arguments, leamed counsel for the re rision petitioner submitted that the respondents herein are avoiding enteri r: 3 the witness box RY,J cP.P 2798 2024 only to avoid cross-examination and as such they are gt:' :ing the evidence recorded through GPA holder, who does not have pers,l ral knowledge of the case and therefore, opposed examination ofthe GPA h rlder as P.W.1.

9. Whereas, leamed counsel for the respondents :ir bmitted that the evidentiary value of the GPA holder can be considered t1 the trial Court at the time of pronouncing of the judgment, but cannot I revent him from adducing evidence on behalf of the respondents. Leamt d counsel for the respondents further argued that Rules 32 and 33 of tt e Civil Rules of Practice enable the GPA holder to represent the case of the principal and also evidence can be given by GPA hotder, if he has per:,t nal knowledge of the facts of the case. In the said circurnstances, the GP.l holder cannot be precluded from adducing evidence on behallofthe respcr dents.

10. Rules 32 and 33 of the Civil Rules of Prar: Lce are enabling provisions where the GPA holder when is authorized t y his principal is permitted to appear, represent, prosecute and depose refore the Court. Further, there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble I upreme Court of India, wherein it is held that GPA holder is competent \\ i ness to depose on behatf of his principal when he or she has personal kt t wledge about the 3 I ( RY,J cw?298 2024 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 GpA holder as a witness can be decided by the court while deciding the matter finally.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court sees no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial court and the same is riable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the civit Revision petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order dared 10. lr-2023 passed by the trial court in I.A.No.g25 of 2023 in o.S.No. 1408 of 2019. There shail be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The XVlll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri V S Sudhaker, Advocite tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri Shaik Shafee Ur Raheman, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies AB -CFr HIGH COURT DATED: 1611012025 , I ORDER CRP.No.2298 of 2024 ./"' , :- i., 'r9 [[c ?.u5 ' \ \ I,si'r-.cP DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS ,rf