Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjit Kaur vs Inderjit Kaur And Ors on 22 September, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Civil Revision No.4193 of 2013
.....
Date of decision:22.9.2014
Sukhjit Kaur alias Sukhpal Kaur
.....Petitioner
v.
Inderjit Kaur and others
.....Respondents
....
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Divya Godara, Advocate for respondent No.1.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
Sukhjit Kaur alias Sukhpal Kaur-petitioner/defendant No.2 has filed this civil revision petition against Inderjit Kaur-respondent/plaintiff and Rajdeep Kaur and Arshdeep Kaur proforma-respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.5.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for restraining respondent No.1 from appearing as her own witness has been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that defendant moved an application for HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh C. R. No.4193 of 2013 [2] not allowing plaintiff Inderjit Kaur to give her evidence in the present case only on the ground that her power of attorney has already appeared and has given the evidence and now the plaintiff herself has no right to appear to give her evidence.
From the perusal of the impugned order dated 30.5.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali, I find that the impugned order is correct and as per law. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali while dismissing the application has relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 2 WLN 713, in which it was held that a general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party, but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. Similarly, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali has also relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Limited and others, 2005 (2) CCC 324 (SC), in which it is held that 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. Even if it is taken that the power of attorney has been examined by Inderjit Kaur as the witness, even then there is no provision or law that the plaintiff can be restrained from examining herself as a witness. Rather, the law is otherwise that the plaintiff himself/herself is to appear as witness to depose regarding the facts of the main case and the attorney can only depose regarding the acts which he has done on the basis HARPAL SINGH PARMAR of power of attorney.
2014.09.29 14:23I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh C. R. No.4193 of 2013 [3]
Therefore, from the above, I find that the impugned order dated 30.5.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali is correct and as per law, which does not require any interference by this Court and the same is upheld.
Therefore, finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same is dismissed.
September 22, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh