Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition, order dated 19.4.2010 has been challenged. By the aforesaid order, application moved by the defendant-respondent was partly allowed. 2. It is a case where matter was fixed for plaintiffs evidence in which plaintiff Smt. Shanta Meena submitted affidavit. She could not appear in the court for cross examination. In her place, husband filed affidavit in the capacity of power of attorney. Objection was taken by the respondents that her husband can be examined as witness but cannot be examined as plaintiff. The application aforesaid was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that application so moved does not disclose any provision of law under which it has been filed. 4. By the impugned order, plaintiff has been compelled to come in the witness box. It is lastly contended that ignoring the judgment cited by the petitioner in the case of Smt. Sharadamma vs. Smt. Kenchamma & Ors. (AIR 2007 Karnataka 17), the Court below has passed the impugned order. Hence, impugned order deserves to be set aside. He has placed reliance on the judg-ment in the case of Smt. Sharadamma (supra) and Kailashi Devi vs. Matadeen Agrawal & Ors. (AIR 2001 Rajasthan 306 = RLW 2001(4) Raj. 226) also. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that power of attorney holder has been allowed to come in the witness box. The only rider is that he should not be treated as plaintiff. Reference of the judgment in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. ( AIR 2005 SC 439 ) has been given to support the contention. 6. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 7. So far as the first arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, I am not convicted with the aforesaid as non-disclosure of a provision of law while filing application is not fatal. Application cannot be dismissed only on the aforesaid ground if otherwise tenable under law. So far as second argument is concerned, impugned order no where directs plaintiff to come in the witness box. It is only the presumption drawn by the petitioner. Application cannot be dismissed only on the aforesaid ground if otherwise tenable under law. So far as second argument is concerned, impugned order no where directs plaintiff to come in the witness box. It is only the presumption drawn by the petitioner. The impugned order only clarifies the position that so far as plaintiff husband is concerned the can come in the witness box but not in the capacity of power of plaintiff attorney holder. Hence, second argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner is not coming out from the impugned order. 8. So far as last argument, referring to the judgment in the case of Smt. Dharadamma (supra) rendered by the Karnataka High Court and case of Kailashi Devi (supra) rendered by the Rajasthan High Court are concerned, I have considered the same. 9. In the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the matter in detail in reference to the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein it is held that power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of principal. Relevant para 13 of the judgment is quoted thus- "13. Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. In our view the word "acts" employed in Order III, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, confines only in respect of "acts" done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term "acts" would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some "acts" in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he 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." 10. In view of authoritative pronouncement on the issue, judgment of this Court and Karnataka High Court cannot hold filed if run counter to the judgment of the Supreme Court. 11. In view of authoritative pronouncement on the issue, judgment of this Court and Karnataka High Court cannot hold filed if run counter to the judgment of the Supreme Court. 11. In the case of Kailashi Devi (supra) the issue was that if power of attorney holder has appeared in the witness box, as to whether his evidence can be refused to be taken into consideration. The issue therein was decided after holding that the power of attorney holder is having right to come in the witness box. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) however settled the controversy. Accordingly, judgments of the Rajasthan High Court so as the Karnataka High Court does not provide complete assistance to the petitioner. 12. So far as judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Sharadamma (supra) is concerned, it was on different facts. Therein, the issue was as to whether plaintiff can be compelled to come and depose her/his statement, Karnataka High Court held that Court cannot compel plaintiff to come in the witness box. 13. To appreciate the arguments, it would be gainful to quote Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for ready reference to clarify the position since much emphasis has been made on it by learned counsel for petitioner- "ORDER III RECOGNISED AGENTS AND PLEADERS 1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognized 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 recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf: Provide that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person. 2. 2. Recognized agents.- The recognized agent of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are- (a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties; (b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts." 14. If the interpretation of Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC is to mean that appearance of recognized agents or pleader is permissible for all purposes including deposition of statement in place of plaintiff then it would mean that the pleader can also depose statement for principal. The court should give interpretation to the provision which are not only harmonious but remain applicable in all situation with same interpretation. If interpretation of Order III Rule 1 and 2 CPC is that power of attorney can depose in place of principal in all circumstances then same interpretation will apply to the pleader, in view of the heading of the provision. 15. In my opinion, the purpose of Order III Rule 1 CPC is not for appearance of recognized agent or pleader as witness in place of principal. They are authorised to appear as representative of the party to the extent it is permissible but not in the manner that they may replace the principal itself. If the power of attorney has acted in place of principal prior to filing of the suit, he can depose for principal but not in all circumstances. In the present matter, there is nothing on record that power of attorney was given prior to filing of suit to show same act of power of attorney, rather prior to filing of suit, in this case, power of attorney was given much after filing of the suit. 16. In the light of aforesaid, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order. In the facts of this case, power of attorney has not been debarred to appear as a witness. The only question is regarding his capacity. Hence, no case is made out for calling interference in the impugned order. 16. In the light of aforesaid, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order. In the facts of this case, power of attorney has not been debarred to appear as a witness. The only question is regarding his capacity. Hence, no case is made out for calling interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/-. 17. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, stay application also stands dismissed.