Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.08.2005 passed in I.A.No.269 of 2004 in O.S.No.1603 of 1998 on the file of the learned Third Additional District Munsif, Trichy. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/first defendant. 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.1603 of 1988 in the Court of III Additional District Munsif, Trichy seeking injunction not to evict him otherwise in accordance with due process of law. The petitioner being an old man has chosen to execute a power deed dated 08.12.2003 in favour of one M.Bernad, S/o.Michel. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.269 of 2004, seeking permission of the Court to recognise the said M.Bernad, S/o. Michel as his power agent to conduct the case on the behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. 5. The first and second respondents herein filed counter objecting to it on various grounds including the one that the power of attorney cannot give evidence on behalf of the principal. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the main ground that as per the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in A.I.R.2005-SC-439, a power of attorney cannot depose for the principal relating to matters which only the principal could have personal knowledge. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such an order of dismissal the present Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on the following main grounds: The trial Court misdirected itself by understanding as though the application filed by the plaintiff was for seeking permission to permit his power agent to depose on his behalf. Accordingly he would pray for setting aside the order of the trial Court and for permitting the plaintiff to be represented by his power agent. 7. The points for consideration are (i) whether the plaintiff is entitled to be represented by his power agent? and (ii) whether there is any infirmity in the order of the trial Court? 8. On points: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/first defendant. 9. 7. The points for consideration are (i) whether the plaintiff is entitled to be represented by his power agent? and (ii) whether there is any infirmity in the order of the trial Court? 8. On points: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/first defendant. 9. At the outset itself, I would like to highlight that the trial Court miserably failed to understand the real purport of the prayer of the petitioner/ plaintiff. Hence, it is just and necessary to extract hereunder the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff in the said I.A.No.269 of 2004: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that the Honble Court may be pleased to recognise Thiru M.Bernad, S/o.Michel as Power of Attorney Agent of the petitioner/plaintiff and permit him to conduct the case on behalf of the plaintiff and thus render justice". 10. A mere perusal of the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court would amply make the point clear that he never prayed for any permission for his power agent to depose before the Court or he never expected that the Court should treat the evidence, which would be given by the power agent as the evidence of the plaintiff himself. As such in this view of the matter, the petitioners stand is different from the one contemplated in the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in A.I.R.2005-SC-439. No party could carve out an exception to the application of Indian Evidence Act. Further if any fact is within the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff it goes without saying that only he could depose relating to such facts and in the absence of deposing, if the Court finds that it would be fatal to the case of such party then the matter would be entirely different and there cannot be any direction or order by any Court to the effect that whatever the power agent would depose on behalf of the plaintiff should be taken for gospel truth. 11. As such with this observation, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court should be set aside and that the petitioner should be permitted to represented by his power agent and conduct the case on behalf of him. 12. 11. As such with this observation, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court should be set aside and that the petitioner should be permitted to represented by his power agent and conduct the case on behalf of him. 12. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the fair and decreetal order dated 12.08.2005 passed in I.A.No.269 of 2004 in O.S.No.1603 of 1998 on the file of the learned III Additional District Munsif, Trichy is set aside and I.A.No.269 of 2004 in O.S.No.1603 of 1998 on the file of the learned III Additional District Munsif, Trichy shall stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.