JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner, seeks to delete the names of respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 which is granted. The amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2.Heard Shri A. Navelkar for the petitioner and Shri C. Mascarenhas for the respondents. 3.Rule made forthwith with consent. 4.The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed pursuant to the objections raised regarding the absence of Power of Attorney in favour of the Bank/petitioner and such objections were raised on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2, 6 and 8 and this fact is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the respondents. 5.Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the trial Court by order dated 20th March, 1997 upheld the objections raised on behalf of the respondents for the examination of P.W. 1 on the ground that the witness did not have Power of Attorney from the Bank. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for review of the said order referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of (United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others)1, reported in 1998 Bank.J. 324(S.C.) and that of this Court in the matter of (Central Bank of India v. Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Company and others)2, reported in 1997(2) Bom.C.R. 267 . The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 5-8-98. 6.Upon hearing learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the trial Court had upheld the objections for examination of P.W. 1 solely on the ground that the witness did not have the necessary Power of Attorney to depose on behalf of the Bank. Copy of the deed of Power of Attorney placed on record also discloses that the same did not include any clause empowering the witness to depose on behalf of the Bank. Nonetheless, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Central Bank of India v. Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Co. Copy of the deed of Power of Attorney placed on record also discloses that the same did not include any clause empowering the witness to depose on behalf of the Bank. Nonetheless, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Central Bank of India v. Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Co. and others, (supra) has clearly held that anybody can give evidence in the Court on behalf of the Bank provided he is acquainted with the facts of the case and it is not necessary that such person should necessarily have a Power of Attorney or authorisation from the Bank to give evidence in the Court as witness on behalf of the Bank. The observations of the learned Single Judge in the said decision reads thus:- "In this cross-examination it is elicited that the witness has no Power of Attorney or written authorisation to give evidence in the Court. The learned Counsel for the defendants contended at the time of arguments that P.W. 1 has no right to give evidence on behalf of the bank without Power of Attorney or written authorisation. In my view, this argument, has no merit. Anybody can come and give evidence in Court provided that he is acquainted with the facts of that case. No Power of Attorney or authorisation is necessary for any witness to give evidence in Court. It may be for filing the plaint, or signing the plaint or signing a written statement an authorisation may be necessary, but to give evidence on oath, anybody, who is acquainted with the facts can give evidence." 7.In view of the above decision of this Court, it is clear that the witness who wants to depose on behalf of the Bank, it is not necessary to have Power of Attorney from the Bank for the said purpose. Being so, it will result in failure of justice if the impugned order as well as the Order dated 20-3-97 are allowed to remain on record and if the petitioner is not allowed to examine P.W. 1 as its witness. 8.In the interest of justice, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed, bearing in mind the decision of this Court in the matter of Central Bank of India v. Tarseema Compress Wood Mfg. Co. (supra) 9.In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds. 8.In the interest of justice, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed, bearing in mind the decision of this Court in the matter of Central Bank of India v. Tarseema Compress Wood Mfg. Co. (supra) 9.In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds. The impugned order along with order dated 20th March, 1997 are hereby set aside and the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to examine Shri Manohar Soman (P.W. 1) as the witness for the petitioner. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute in the following terms. Petition succeed. *****