JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: This revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against Order No. 38 dated March 9, 2000, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 2nd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 627 of 1993 thereby rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner against deposition of the husband of the opposite party as witness on behalf of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff suit was one for eviction of the present petitioner. As the plaintiff is ill and for her treatment she is staying in U.S.A., the husband is looking after the suit on her behalf by holding power of attorney. 3. At the time of hearing of the suit, the said husband intended to give evidence in support of the plaint case as a witness for the plaintiff. At this stage the present petitioner came forward with an application stating that a constituted attorney cannot appear as witness on behalf of the plaintiff and in support of such contention, the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1998 Rajasthan page 189 was relied upon. By the order impugned herein, the learned Trial Judge has rejected such application. 4. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up in revision. 5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strongly relied upon paragraph 9 of the said judgment and has contended that a constituted attorney can act by virtue of such power of attorney but that does not include a right to appear as witness on behalf of party. According to him the plaintiff must personally give evidence and if she is ill, she may be asked to give deposition in commission. 6. I am afraid, I am unable to accept such contention. In the suit for eviction of a trespasser even the husband of a plaintiff is entitled to give evidence as a witness for the plaintiff if he is acquainted with the relevant fact and circumstances of the case. It is not necessary that in every case plaintiff himself should appear and give evidence even if he is not acquainted with the fact of the case. It is not necessary that in every case plaintiff himself should appear and give evidence even if he is not acquainted with the fact of the case. As pointed out earlier in the instant case, the husband is looking after the case on behalf of the wife by holding a power of attorney and he may be acquainted with the fact of the present case is competent to appear as witness for the plaintiff for the purpose of proving the case of the plaintiff. 7. Therefore, the said decision does not help the present petitioner in any way. 8. I thus, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. The revisional application is thus devoid of any substance and is dismissed. 9. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be delivered within a week from the application. Revisional application dismissed.