the respondent No.2 Company, the competency of DW-1 to depose as witness for Respondent No.2 and 3 cannot be questioned. Therefore, on facts, the case of S. Kesari Hanuman Goud (supra), cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant is distinguishable. For the reason cited above, even the decision of the case of Man Kaur (supra) does not apply in this case because the suit in that case was for specific performance of contract where readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract was a fact to be decided and in that connection, it was held that if a power of attorney had no personal knowledge, he cannot depose to prove readiness and willingness, which is not the facts of the case in hand because the respondent has inherited the litigation by operation of law as provided under Section 394(1)(iii) of the Companies Act, 1956. In this connection, it must be remembered that procedural law is a mere handmaid of justice, as such, when by operation of law, service related litigation is inherited by a Company, there is no infirmity if a persons who is in employment with the transferee company and holding a valid power of attorney deposes on the basis of record. The competency of such witness cannot be challenged at the appellate stage and that to after his competency is not questioned while the said DW-1 was being cross – examined.
