@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V.M. Velumani, J.@mdashThese civil revision petitions have been filed to set aside the fair and executable orders, dated 27.10.2007, passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Valangaimaan at Kumbakonam, in I.A. Nos. 323 and 324 of 2007 in O.S. Nos. 229 and 231 of 2007 and the fair and executable orders, dated 27.10.2007, passed by learned Additional District Munsif, Valangaimaan at Kumbakonam, in I.A. Nos. 270 and 271 of 2007 in O.S. Nos. 232 and 230 of 2007. Heard Mr. A.R.M. Ramesh, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. T.V. Sivakumar, the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suits in O.S. Nos. 229, 232, 230 and 231 of 2007, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Valangaimaan and the Additional District Munsif Court, Valangaimaan at Kumbakonam. The suits have been filed for recovery of money. The petitioner filed I.A. Nos. 323, 270, 271 and 324 of 2007 in O.S. Nos. 229, 232, 230 and 231 of 2007, to accept the person mentioned in the applications as Power Agent of the Plaintiff. The relief is sought, on the ground that he was the Manager of the Branch and he knew the facts of these cases and the transactions personally and he only singed in the vakalath, plaint and other documents. When the applications were taken up, the respondents were not present either in person or through counsel.
3. The learned Judge relied on the Judgment reported in
"Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 - Power of Attorney Holder -cannot - depose in place and instead of Principal."
After referring to the Headnote, the learned Judge allowed the application only permitting the petitioner to give oral evidence and held that to mark the documents, only the Principal (Plaintiff) must appear in person. Against the said order, the present civil revision petitions are filed.
4. This Court in the Judgment reported
"8. It is to be pointed out that ''a General Power of Attorney Holder'' can appear as a witness, only in his personal capacity. But he cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiff in the capacity of Plaintiff as per the decision in
12. It is to be noted that a Power of Attorney is to be strictly construed as giving such authority as it expressly or by implication, enables a person to do specified acts. Ordinarily, a Court of Law cannot decline to recognise an implied authority that every agent has to do whatever that is necessary or incidental to the effective/efficacious execution of the express authority conferred on him by the said Power of Attorney. When a power-of-attorney holder enters into the witness box, he/she can only depose in regard to the documents and such evidence can be relied upon."
This Court held that the Power of Attorney Holder can depose with regard to his/her personal capacity only. He/She cannot depose on factual aspect of controversy in issue, which are within the special knowledge or within the purview or domain of principal. It has also been held that the Power of Attorney Holder when enters into a witness box can only depose in regard to the documents and such evidence can be relied upon.
5. In the present case, the deponent of the affidavit was the Branch Manager of the Plaintiff Bank. He knows the suit transaction personally. The Plaintiff is the Bank registered under the Companies Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff in the present case, is only a Branch Manager, who is authorised to sign the vakalath, plaint and other documents both as a Principal Officer as well as a Power Agent. The deponent of the affidavit has stated that he was the Branch Manager of the Plaintiff Bank at the time of transaction and he personally knows the suit transaction. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge that the Power of Attorney Holder cannot mark the documents, but only can give oral evidence, suffers from irregularity and the same is liable to be set aside. The deponent of the affidavit, who is the Power Agent and Branch Manager at the time of suit transaction, is entitled to give oral evidence, mark the documents and speak about the documents out of his personal knowledge. In the result, these civil revision petitions are allowed setting aside the orders of the learned Principal District Munsif, Valangaimaan at Kumbakonam, in I.A. Nos. 323 and 324 of 2007 in O.S. Nos. 229 and 231 of 2007 and the orders of the learned Additional District Munsif, Valangaimaan at Kumbakonam, in I.A. Nos. 270 and 271 of 2007 in O.S. Nos. 232 and 230 of 2007. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
