JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Arpit Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for revisionist, and perused the record. 2. This revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1887”) has come up against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Agra/Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra decreeing ex parte S.C.C. Suit No. 21 of 2001 wherein the defendant-revisionist though appeared and filed written statement, but thereafter absented and allowed the proceedings to be concluded ex parte. 3. The Court below found that plaintiff in support of his case has filed certain documents, like copy of notice dated 9.7.2001 alongwith copy of sale-deed and copy of sanctioned plan of construction and certificate of possession dated 11.5.1998 to show that premises in question was a new construction completed in 1998. He also filed certificate of Union Bank of India dated 25.7.2002 stating that he has deposited original sale-deed dated 5.3.1997 and original house building map dated 28.9.1996 with the Bank in connection with Loan which has not been liquidated or repaid on the said property, which shows that in 1996, loan was sanctioned by Bank and construction was raised and possession was taken on 11.5.1998. In that view of matter, The Court below has found that U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) is not applicable to the premises in question and in absence of any evidence to rebut the initial burden discharged by plaintiff in support of his case, the Court below found no option but to decree the suit. 4. The plaintiff has also examined his brother Megh Singh as PW-1 in support of the assertions contained in the plaint. Counsel for revisionist submitted that unless the plaintiff himself is examined, the suit could not have been decreed and an adverse inference should have been drawn and in support thereof placed reliance on Apex Court’s decision in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, 2010 (10) SCC 512 . 5. The aforesaid decision, in my view, does not help the revisionist in the case in hand at all. That was a case of enforcement of an agreement to sell by a decree of specific performance of contract. 5. The aforesaid decision, in my view, does not help the revisionist in the case in hand at all. That was a case of enforcement of an agreement to sell by a decree of specific performance of contract. The Court found that requirement of law that purchaser was always in the position of readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, was a condition of mind and, therefore, the plaintiff himself should have appeared in witness-box to prove the aforesaid fact. These facts could not have been allowed to be proved through an attorney-holder or a third person as it relates to certain facts which are in the personal knowledge of person concerned, i.e., plaintiff. The Court laid down certain parameters as to who should give evidence in respect to matters involving personal knowledge and said as under: “(a) An attorney-holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit. (b) If the attorney-holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions. If the attorney-holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney-holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be proved. (c) The attorney-holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge. (d) Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney-holder, necessarily the attorney-holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorized managers/attorney-holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney holders. (e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney-holder, the principal has to examine that attorney-holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney holder. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorized managers/attorney-holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney holders. (e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney-holder, the principal has to examine that attorney-holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney holder. (f) Where different attorney-holders had dealt with the matter at different stages of the transaction, if evidence has to be led as to what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney-holders will have to be examined. (g) Where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his ‘state of mind’ or ‘conduct’, normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney-holder. A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his ‘bona fide’ need and a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to show his ‘readiness and willingness’ fall under this category. There is however a recognized exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bona fides or ‘readiness and willingness’. Examples of such attorney holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad.” 6. In respect to a suit for specific performance, the Court, thus, clearly said that plaintiff has to prove, (A) that a valid agreement for sale was entered into by defendant in his favour and the terms thereof, (B) that defendant committed breach of contract; and, (C) that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract in the terms of agreement. It further said that if the plaintiff has to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, i.e. to perform his obligation in terms of contract, necessarily he should step into witness box and give evidence that he has all along been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and subject himself to cross-examination on that issue. A plaintiff cannot examine in his place his attorney-holder, who did not have personal knowledge either on the transaction or of his ‘readiness and willingness’. ‘Readiness and willingness’ refer to state of mind and conduct of purchaser on the one hand as also his capacity and preparation on the other. One without other is not sufficient. A third party, therefore, who has no personal knowledge, cannot give evidence about such ‘readiness and willingness’ of purchaser, even if he is an attorney-holder of the person concerned. Thus, the aforesaid decision relates to the facts and dispute involved therein and has no application to the case in hand. There is no absolute proposition laid down by the Court that unless a plaintiff himself has appeared in witness-box, as a rule of thumb it will be deemed that he has failed to prove his case at all and it has to be dismissed, even though plaintiff has examined witnesses to prove otherwise his case where the question of personal knowledge etc. are not involved. 7. Moreover, in the case in hand, it is the brother of plaintiff who has deposed his statement by appearing in witness-box and a brother may have personal knowledge of certain facts and cannot be said to be a total stranger to the facts of the matter. 8. Be that as it may, for the purpose of present case, I have no hesitation in holding that decision in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. 9. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in this revision. 10. Dismissed, accordingly. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately. ——————