JUDGMENT By the order impugned, the Court below not only rejected Power of Attorney filed by the applicants/plaintiffs appointing one Kesarsingh as their Attorney for the purpose of the suit, but also made certain observations that the evidence given by said Kesarsingh on behalf of the appellants shall not be read in evidence. The Court further held that the Power of Attorney is insufficiently stamped and would be admissible only on payment of duty penalty. The order is manifestly wrong contrary to law. The document in-question is a special Power of Attorney executed in favour of said Kesarsingh appointing him to appear on behalf of the plaintiffs in the suit. The document clearly fell within Clause (g) of Article 48 of Schedule 1(A) of the Stamp Act. It required stamp duty of Rs. 20/- which it contains. No further stamp duty was required to be levied on this document and no duty penalty was, therefore, required to be paid by the plaintiffs for admission of this document. The Court below was further wrong in observing that since plaintiffs are not disabled persons they need not to appoint anybody as their Attorney. It is none of the concerned of the Court to see whether or not the plaintiffs need to appoint a person as their Attorney. Holder of Power of Attorney can appear and act on behalf of the party. He can certainly also appear as witness and his testimony would be judged on its own merits. Accordingly, I allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order. A copy of this order be transmitted immediately to the trial Court.