The Single Judge disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging the lower court's order dismissing an application to permit a husband to represent his wife in a suit based on the affidavit omission of a subsisting General Power of Attorney.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed without costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.678 OF 2013
ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A. No.1297 of 2012 in O.S. No.370 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, dismissing the application to permit the G.P.A Holder of the petitioners-defendants to represent the case on the ground that the affidavit does not disclose that the G.P.A. is still subsisting.
2. The 1st petitioner/defendant No.1 has appointed her husband as a G.P.A. Holder to give evidence and to represent her case. Evidently, the G.P.A Holder can appear as a witness on his own but cannot be permitted to represent the party in the suit. Even otherwise as per Section 120 of Indian Evidence Act, the husband is competent to give evidence on behalf of his wife and even in the absence of G.P.A, he can give evidence. If at all the 1st petitioner further feels that evidence shall be given by her, she can also be examined.
3. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order of the Court below that for lack of allegation in the affidavit that the G.P.A. is subsisting cannot be sustained in view of the fact that it was not denied by the otherside and G.P.A was given on 08.10.2012 and application was filed on 11.10.2012. I feel that the order of the Court below need not be interfered with. The husband of the 1st petitioner can individually give evidence on her behalf.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
Date: 12.04.2013 Knl/ vvr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Civil Revision Petition should be disposed of regarding the refusal to permit a husband as a witness to represent his wife without disclosing a subsisting General Power of Attorney.
1st Petitioner/Defendant
Respondents
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
