ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other order of the like and quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 11.01.2022 on IA-24 in OS No. 224/2014 on the file of the 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Raichur as per Annexure-F to the writ petition in the interest of justice. (b) Any other order as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed. 2. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 224/2014 seeking for the following reliefs: (i) To declare that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties. (ii) A declaratory decree be passed declaring that the Regd. Sale Deeds No 217/1988-89 dated 13.1.1988, Regd. Sale deed No. 218/1988-89 dated 13.1.1988 and Regd. Sale Deed No. 2724/2001-02 dated 28.3.2002, as illegal, null and void, inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon the plaintiff. (iii) To direct the defendants their men, agents, servants, etc. who ever claiming through them to deliver the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. (iv) The costs of the suit be awarded. (v) Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances case, may also be awarded, in the interest of justice. 3. Petitioners who were defendants No. 2 and 3 in the said suit had entered appearance, filed their written statement, as also cross-examined the plaintiff witnesses. When the matter was posted for evidence of defendants No. 2 and 3, they filed an application under Order 3 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC which came to be numbered as IA No. 24 seeking permission to lead evidence on their behalf throught Special Power of Attorney (SPA), same being opposed by respondent on the ground that the application was filed only to protract the proceedings and no grounds were made out for leading such evidence, the trial Court accepting the objections dismissed the application. It is aggrieved by the same, that the petitioner is before this court. 4. Sri.Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners who were defendants in the proceedings always had an option to lead evidence of any witness that they choose to. It is aggrieved by the same, that the petitioner is before this court. 4. Sri.Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners who were defendants in the proceedings always had an option to lead evidence of any witness that they choose to. The evidence now sought to be led through SPA on account of respondents No. 2 and 3 being held up in certain other activities was to expedite the process and not to protract the proceedings. The evidence which is led through SPA would have to be considered by the Court in accordance with law. On these grounds he submits that the petition is required to be allowed, the impugned order be setaside and consequently, IA No. 24 be allowed. 5. Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, opposes the petition by contending that the said application, was filed only to protract the proceedings, no grounds have been made out in the affidavit filed in support of the application except vaguely stating that the petitioner No. 2 is busy in agricultural activities and as such, SPA can not be permitted to lead evidence. This has been rightly considered by the trial Court dismissed the application. 6. Heard Sri.Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused records. 7. The points that would arise for determination by this Court are: (i) Whether a party seeking to lead evidence through a general power of attorney or special power of attorney would be required to make an application seeking permission to lead such evidence in the matter? (ii) Whether the request made in an application to lead evidence of Power of Attorney can be dismissed by stating that no grounds are made out? (iii) What order? 8. I answer the above points as under. 9. ANSWER TO POINT NO. 1: Whether a party seeking to lead evidence through a general power of attorney or special power of attorney would be required to make an application seeking permission to lead such evidence in the matter? 9.1. Order 3 of CPC deals with recognised agents and pleaders. In terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Order 3, any appearance or application in court may be done by a party in such court or by his recognised agent or pleader. 9.2. 9.1. Order 3 of CPC deals with recognised agents and pleaders. In terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Order 3, any appearance or application in court may be done by a party in such court or by his recognised agent or pleader. 9.2. In terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Order 3 the recognised agents is defined to be person holding power of attorney authorising time to make such appearances, applications and act on behalf of a party, as also persons carrying on trade or business, for and in the name of a party to a proceeding. It is therefore, clause (a) which relates to power of attorneys authorising them to do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of the parties which would be attracted in the present case. 9.3. The said Sub-Rule (2) permits recognised agents of parties to do the things as stated in the power of attorney, suffice it to say, the said permission is not by way of application but by way of very existence of Sub-Rule (2) to Order 3 of CPC. Thus, no particular application would be required to be filed seeking for permission to permit the power of attorney to lead evidence. 9.4. Sub-Rule (3) of Order 3 deals with the manner in which service could be effected on a recognised agent. Thus, service on a power of attorney amounts to service on a party. 9.5. In terms of Sub-Rule (4) Order 3 of CPC a pleader can be appointed by a document in writing signed by a party or by his recognised agent or some other person duly authorised by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment. Thus, a power of attorney can even appoint a pleader or an advocate in a proceeding. 9.6. In the light of the above provisions, it is clear that a power of attorney, be a General power of attorney or Special power of attorney is appointed in a particular matter by one of the parties to that matter, such power of attorney can subject to the contents and powers vested under the power of attorney carry out such duties as is authorised to do so under the power of attorney. 9.7. 9.7. Insofar the veracity or otherwise of the evidence which is led, the same shall have to stand the test of the Indian Evidence Act, which would include personal knowledge of the facts, as also stand the test of cross-examination as also rules relating to appreciation of evidence as per applicable law. 9.8. I am of the considered opinion that a power of attorney cannot be shut out or prevented from leading evidence on behalf of a party to a proceeding. 9.9. Hence, I answer Point No. 1 by holding that a party seeking to lead evidence through a general power of attorney or special power of attorney would not be required to make a separate application seeking permission to lead such evidence in the matter. 10. ANSWER TO POINT NO. 2: Whether the request made in an application to lead evidence of Power of Attorney can be dismissed by stating that no grounds are made out? 10.1. In view of my answer to point No. 1, no application for permission is required for the power of attorney to lead evidence on behalf of a party. The question of rejection of such application on the ground that no grounds have been made out by a power of attorney to lead evidence is not sustainable. 10.2. The application in the present matter was not even required to be filed but appears to have been filed by abundant caution. That being the case, irrespective of rejection of IA-24 defendant No. 2 and 3 always have a right to lead evidence through power of attorney in the matter subject to rules of evidence and rules of appreciation of evidence. 10.3. In view of the above, I answer point No. 2 by holding that reasoning followed by the trial Court in rejecting IA No. 24 is not proper and just. 11. ANSWER TO POINT NO. 3: What order? 11.1. In view of the above finding, I pass the following: ORDER: (i) The writ petition is allowed. Certiorari is issued. The impugned order dated 11.01.2022 passed on IA-24 in O.S. No. 224/2014 by the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur at Annexure-F is quashed. (ii) There is no particular reason to allow IA No. 24 inasmuch as the petitioners-defendants would always have a right to lead evidence through their power of attorney. Certiorari is issued. The impugned order dated 11.01.2022 passed on IA-24 in O.S. No. 224/2014 by the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur at Annexure-F is quashed. (ii) There is no particular reason to allow IA No. 24 inasmuch as the petitioners-defendants would always have a right to lead evidence through their power of attorney. (iii) Any evidence led through the power of attorney would always be subject to rules of Evidence and rules of appreciation. (iv) Considering that the Suit is of the year 2014, the trial court is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt copy of this order. (v) The submission of Sri.Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants No. 2 and 3 and Sri.Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that they will cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit without seeking for unnecessary adjournment is placed on record. (vi) The submission of Sri.Shivanand Patil, learned counsel that defendants No. 2 and 3 to lead their evidence through their power of attorney holder on the very next date on which the matter is posted is placed is record. His submission that witnesses would be kept present for cross-examination by the plaintiff without seeking unnecessary adjournments is also placed on record.