JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—At the time of arguments, no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar Awasthi, hence only the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard. 2. Petitioner has instituted O.S. No. 99 of 1991 against respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar Awasthi. In the suit, plaintiff petitioner filed an application 73-Ga stating therein that she was suffering from heart disease, hence she had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her husband indicating therein that whatever her husband would do in the suit would be acceptable to her and binding upon her. The defendant opposed the application and stated that plaintiff was not ill as alleged by her. Power of Attorney was also filed along with the application. Copy of the said Power of Attorney is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the said Power of Attorney, after recording that she was suffering from heart disease and unable to move, plaintiff stated that she was appointing her husband as general Power of Attorney holder and authorising him to do pairvi in the suit, to enter into compromise, to give statement and to do all other things, which are necessary for the suit and all the actions done by her husband, Chandra Mohan would be deemed to have been done by her. 3. Trial Court/IInd Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division allowed the plaintiff’s application 73-Ga on 1.9.1998. The learned trial Court .referred to Order 3 Rule-1 and 2, C.P.C. and Section 118 of Evidence Act. On behalf of the defendant, an authority of Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1998 Raj. 185 , Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain, was cited and was considered by the Trial Court. Against the order of Trial Court dated 1.9.1998, defendant filed Civil Revision No. 65 of 1998. A.D.J./Special Judge, E.C. Act, Banda allowed the revision on 14.10.1998 and set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 1.9.1998. The said order of the Revisional Court has been challenged through this writ petition. Revisional Court considered and placed reliance upon the aforesaid authority of Rajasthan High Court and some other authorities of this Court. 4. In Order-Ill Rule-1 of C.P.C., it is provided as under : “1. The said order of the Revisional Court has been challenged through this writ petition. Revisional Court considered and placed reliance upon the aforesaid authority of Rajasthan High Court and some other authorities of this Court. 4. In Order-Ill Rule-1 of C.P.C., it is provided as under : “1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognised agent or by pleader.— Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognised agent, or by a pleader [appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be] on his behalf : Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.” 5. Sections 118 and 120 of the Evidence Act are also quoted below : “118. Who may testify.—All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Explanation.—A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them. 120. Parties to civil suit, and their wives or husbands; Husband or wife of person under criminal trial.—In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a competent witness.” 6. Unfortunately, both the Courts below did not consider Section 120 of the Evidence Act. 7. The aforesaid authority of the Rajasthan High Court has been considered and approved by the Supreme Court in AIR 2005 SC 439 “Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.”. The Supreme Court has overruled an authority of Bombay High Court taking a contrary view. The Supreme Court has held that the word ‘act’ used under Order-3 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. does not include deposing in place and instead of principal. The Supreme Court has overruled an authority of Bombay High Court taking a contrary view. The Supreme Court has held that the word ‘act’ used under Order-3 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. does not include deposing in place and instead of principal. The Supreme Court further held that such Power of Attorney holder cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. 8. Moreover, the word ‘disease’ used under Section 118, Evidence Act refers to such disease which affects the patient mentally and he or she due to the said disease is unable to understand questions or prevented from giving rational answers to those questions. There was no such allegation of the plaintiff. Mere restriction on movement due to heart ailment was of no consequence as plaintiff could apply for her examination on commission. 9. However, by virtue of Section 120, Evidence Act, husband was even in the absence of any Power of Attorney quite competent to depose on behalf of the wife. Moreover, in India normally properties standing names of in the ladies are managed by their husbands. If the facts which the plaintiff wants to prove are also in the knowledge of her husband, then even in the absence of any Power of Attorney, he is quite competent to depose on behalf of his wife. However, if there is any fact, which is in the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff, then she alone can depose about that. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Impugned order is modified and it is directed that husband of the plaintiff must be permitted to give oral evidence, however the evidence shall be confined to the facts within his knowledge. Defendant at the stage of argument will be at liberty to argue that some portion of statement of husband of the plaintiff is not admissible, as he has deposed about the facts which could be only in the personal knowledge of his wife. The matter shall be dealt with in accordance with the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court. 11. Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to apply for her examination on commission, if considered necessary by her. If such an application is filed, the same may be considered sympathetically. 12. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ————