Delhi District Court
Anil Jindal vs Baljit Singh Sodhi on 26 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
CS SCJ NO.1589/2024
CNR Number: DLWT03-002701-2024
Sh. Anil Jindal
Proprietor of M/s. Anil Cotton Tape Factory,
Plot No.C-3/1, Naresh Park Extension,
Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi-110041.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Baljit Singh Sodhi
Prop. Of M/s Max Ad. N Print World,
95, G.F., Road No.6, Hari Nagar,
Jail Road, Delhi-110058.
Also at:
C-24, First Floor, DSIDC Complex,
Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015.
Also at:
CB Ground Floor Naraina Ring Road,
Opp. Flyover Pillar No.15, New Delhi-110028.
Also at:
B-205, Ground Floor, Fateh Nagar,
Jail Road, Delhi-110018.
......Defendant
Date of Filing of the suit : 12.11.2024
Date of Judgment : 26.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:15:41 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 1 of 24 Rs.1,32,487/- along with pendente-lite and future interest at 18% p.a. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are, that the plaintiff is the proprietor of Anil Cotton Tape Factory and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of all kinds of paper bag, ropes and handles under the name and style of M/s Anil Cotton Tape Factory, having its office at Plot No. C-3/1, Naresh Park Extension, Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi-110041.
3. It is further averred, that the defendant is the proprietor of M/s Max Ad. N Print World and is engaged in a similar business. The defendant, from time to time, purchased paper bag ropes and handles from the plaintiff on credit basis. The goods were duly supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant to his satisfaction and without any complaint. The plaintiff has raised the invoices against the goods purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff.
4. It is further submitted, that the plaintiff duly filed GST returns with respect to the goods supplied to the defendant and against the aforesaid purchases, the defendant made the payments to the plaintiff in the plaintiff's bank account. Further, the plaintiff has been maintaining a regular running account of all dealings and transactions carried out between the parties in the ordinary course of business by debiting the amount of goods supplied and crediting the RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:15:49 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 2 of 24 payments received from the defendant. It is stated, that between April 2023 and 23.04.2024, the defendant purchased goods worth Rs. 2,81,204/- from the plaintiff, but paid only Rs. 1,58,360/-. As per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff in the ordinary course of business, a balance amount of Rs.1,22,844/- remains due and payable by the defendant.
5. It is further contended, that despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to clear the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,22,844/-. Consequently, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 09.09.2024 through counsel by speed post, calling upon the defendant to make payment of the outstanding amount along with interest @ 18% per annum. The said notice was duly served upon the defendant; however, the defendant neither replied to the notice nor made the payment.
6. It is voiced, that the defendant has been wrongfully and malafidely withholding the aforesaid amount. It was agreed between the parties that payment would be made within 30 days from the date of supply of goods, failing which the defendant would be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount. Since the defendant failed to make timely payment, the plaintiff claims interest at the agreed rate as well as according to trade usage. It is further stated, that the defendant lastly made part payment on 23.04.2024, and therefore, the plaintiff is claiming interest from the said date.
Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery.
Digitally signedRICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:15:58 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 3 of 24
7. It is apparent from the record, that as per tracking report the defendant was served on 07.12.2024. Further, vide order sheet dated 22.01.2025, the copy of the plaint as well as the complete set of paper book was duly supplied to the defendant and he was directed to file the WS on record of the Court within the stipulated period with advance copy to the opposite party. Further, vide order sheet dated 02.04.2025, the defendant was burdened with the cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with the army welfare fund as neither the WS was filed on record of the Court nor supplied to the opposite party against due acknowledgment.
8. Perusal of records shows, that on 26.04.2025, the defendant filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC, thereby seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS along with WS. Further, vide order dated 24.12.2025, the present application was dismissed and matter was slated for plaintiff's evidence.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PLAINTIFF
9. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Sh. Pulkit Jindal, Special Power of Attorney Holder of plaintiff as PW-1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW-1/A. He relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex. PW-1/B(OSR) is the copy of aadhar card of deponent
2. Ex. PW-1/C is the special power of attorney Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:16:04 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 4 of 24
3. Ex. PW-1/D (OSR) is the copy of aadhar card of plaintiff
4. Ex. PW-1/E is the certified copy of GST registration certificate
5. Ex. PW-1/F(colly) is the certified copy of printout of GST details of defendant
6. Ex. PW-1/G (colly) is the invoices
7. Ex. PW-1/H (colly) is the certified copy of GST returns
8. Ex. PW-1/I(colly) is the certified copy of ledger account
9. Ex. PW-1/J is the legal notice
10. Ex. PW-1/K(colly) is the original postal receipt
11. Ex. PW-1/L(colly) is the tracking reports
12. Ex. PW-1/M is the certificate under Section 63 of BSA.
10. PW-1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
11. Thereafter, the petitioner's evidence was closed on 30.04.2026.
12. Pursuant to the completion of evidence advanced by the plaintiff and as the defence of the defendant was already struck off, the present matter was slated for final arguments.
13. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the contesting parties and further perused the record carefully.
14. Before delving into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to discuss in brief the law pertaining to the burden of proof as entailed Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.26 15:16:10 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 5 of 24 under the earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the present Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023.
15. The burden of proof in civil trial is the obligation upon the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claim against the defendant and is based on preponderance of the probabilities. Under Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. Relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 dealing with burden of proof are produced as under:-
Burden of proof:-
104. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
105. On whom burden of proof lies.--
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:16:17 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 6 of 24 were given on either side.
106. Burden of proof as to particular fact.-
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
109. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
16. Therefore, on the basis of the law laid as above, this court proceeds with the appreciation of evidence as adduced in the present suit.
17. It is an admitted fact, that the present suit has been instituted by one Sh. Anil Jindal in capacity of he being the proprietor of Anil Cotton Tape Factory against the defendant. This fact also stands candidly admitted by PW-1 i.e. Sh. Pulkit Jindal in his cross-examination, whereby he deposed, that the present suit has been filed by Sh. Anil Jindal as plaintiff. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
Digitally signedRICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:16:24 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 7 of 24 "It is correct that the present suit has been filed by Sh. Anil Jindal as a plaintiff."
18. It is further not out of place to mention, that PW-1 has further deposed in his cross-examination, that he came to depose on behalf of Sh. Anil Jindal i.e. the plaintiff on the basis of the power of attorney that is Ex.PW1/C, alleged to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of PW-1 i.e. Sh. Pulkit Jindal. It is further apposite to note, that a categorical question was put to PW-1 in his cross-examination to the effect, that if he had taken any such permission of the Court to depose on behalf of the plaintiff but PW-1 was unable to give any plausible and convincing answer to the said question that was put to him in his cross-examination. The relevant excerpts of his cross- examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"I have came to depose on behalf of Anil Jindal. At this stage witness is shown the plaint and which he admits to have been filed by Sh. Anil Jindal and the same is now exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D1. It is correct that my name as an attorney has not been mentioned in the said plaint. Ques. Have you taken any permission from the Court to depose on behalf of the plaintiff, if yes then kindly show the order of the Court to this effect. Ans. Yes, Par itni badi file me mai wo document nhi dhund sakta."Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:16:33 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 8 of 24
19. It is interesting to note, that on one hand it categorically stands admitted by PW-1, that neither his name is mentioned in the plaint nor is there any iota of whisper with regard to the fact that the entire dealing with the plaintiff was entered into by PW-1 but on the other hand the alleged claim stands made by him for the first time in his cross-examination without any basis to the said claim. Resultantly, the said contention admittedly finding no basis in the plaint is beyond the scope of the pleadings on which the claim of the plaintiff is based. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"Ques. I put to you that can you tell after reading the plaint that if it is anywhere stated that it is you who has had the entire dealing with the defendant and not your father i.e. Sh. Anil Jindal?
The witness after going through the plaint submits as under:
Ans. It is correct that my name is not mentioned in the plaint and no mention that I was making entire dealing with the defendant."
20. Now, on proceeding further and deliberating into the cross-
examination of PW-1, it stands surfaced that PW-1 further went on to admit, that a certificate of GST registration exhibited as Ex.PW1/E exists in the name of plaintiff i.e Sh. Anil Jindal and further that the GST of defendant exhibited as Ex.PW1/F (Colly.) also stands signed by the plaintiff i.e Sh. Anil Jindal and not by Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:16:39 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 9 of 24 PW-1. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"It is correct that the certificate of GST registration exhibited as Ex. PW-1/E is in the name of Sh. Anil Jindal and copy of the same is filed by Sh. Anil Jindal. It is wrong to suggest that I am either scribe of the said document nor the same has been signed by me therefore, I cannot exhibit the same.
It is correct that the GST of defendant exhibited as Ex. PW-1/F (colly) are also signed by Sh. Anil Jindal i.e. the plaintiff and not by me."
21. It is further apposite to note, that there is also a categorical admission with regard to the invoices i.e. Ex.PW1/G (Colly.) being signed by plaintiff i.e. Sh. Anil Jindal and not by PW-1. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"It is correct that the invoices exhibited as Ex. PW-1/G (colly) are also signed by Sh. Anil Jindal i.e. the plaintiff and not by me."
22. Apart from this, there is also an admission in cross-examination of PW-1 to the effect, that GST returns exhibited as Ex.PW1/H are also signed by the plaintiff i.e. Sh. Anil Jindal and not by PW-1. The Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 15:16:45 Date: 2026.05.26 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 10 of 24 relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"It is correct that the GST return exhibited as Ex. PW-1/H(colly) are also signed by Sh. Anil Jindal i.e. the plaintiff and not by me."
23. It is further deposed by PW-1, that the ledger account which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/I, Legal notice exhibited Ex.PW1/J, Postal receipts exhibited as Ex.PW1/K and tracking report exhibited as Ex.PW1/L, all being vital documents on which the claim of the plaintiff rests have been signed by the plaintiff i.e. Sh. Anil Jindal and not by PW-1 i.e. Sh. Pulkit Jindal. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"It is correct that the ledger account exhibited as Ex. PW-1/I are also signed by Sh. Anil Jindal i.e. the plaintiff and not by me"
"It is correct that the legal notice exhibited as Ex. PW-1/J are also signed by Sh. Anil Jindal i.e. the plaintiff and not by me."
"Postal receipts exhibited as Ex. PW-1/K (colly) are also signed by Sh. Anil Jindal i.e. the plaintiff and not by me."Digitally signed by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.26 15:16:50 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 11 of 24 "It is correct that the tracking report exhibited as Ex. PW-1/L are also signed by Sh. Anil Jindal i.e. the plaintiff and not by me."
24. Thus, all the documents relied upon by PW-1 in his evidence, primarily are computer generated documents and in support of these documents a certificate also stands filed under Section 63 of BSA exhibited as Ex.PW1/M. However, it is an admitted fact that the said certificate under Section 63 of BSA is also signed by the plaintiff i.e. Sh. Anil Jindal and not by PW-1 Sh. Pulkit Jindal. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"It is correct that the certificate under section 63 of BSA exhibited as Ex. PW-1/M are also signed by Sh. Anil Jindal i.e. the plaintiff and not by me."
25. Thus, from the above detailed admission of PW-1 with respect to execution of all the documents upon which the claim of the plaintiff rests being done by the plaintiff himself and not PW-1, it safely stands deduced, that there is no iota of evidence on record of the Court to even prima facie establish and there was any kind of business dealings between PW-1 i.e. son of the plaintiff and the defendant. It is an admitted fact established on record, that it is the plaintiff i.e. Sh. Anil Jindal who is the proprietor of the plaintiff firm and not his son i.e. Sh. Pulkit Jindal. Therefore, the entire onus was Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:16:57 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 12 of 24 upon the plaintiff i.e. the proprietor to prove the facts which were exclusively within his personal knowledge. It is a settled proposition of law, that the power of attorney holder can give evidence only with respect to the facts which are within his personal knowledge but he cannot be made the substitute the executor of power of attorney to prove facts which are within the exclusive knowledge of the executor.
From the entire deposition of PW-1, it stands established without an iota of doubt, that be it the invoices, the ledger account, legal notice and the GST returns or all the other documents relied upon by the plaintiff, the same were exclusively prepared/signed by PW-1 i.e. Sh. Anil Jindal and once this fact categorically stands admitted, this Court fails to come to the conclusion that how when a particular document stands executed by the plaintiff with the defendant, then PW-1 can prove the same, when he has nothing to do with the said documents. There is no mentioning of the fact, that it was PW-1 who was solely responsible for entire dealings that took place between the plaintiff and defendant and that it is he who was responsible for the exclusive management of the affairs of the plaintiff's proprietorship concern. The said fact surfaced only during the cross-examination of PW-1 and thus, it was upon the plaintiff to have discharged the said burden but he miserably failed to do so. There is no document placed on record to show the capacity in which PW-1 was working with the plaintiff firm and this amounts to a major dent in the entire fabric of plaintiff's story.
At the cost of repetition it is being stated, that it stands Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.26 15:17:03 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 13 of 24 duly admitted by PW-1 in his deposition before the Court that all the vital documents on which the claim of the plaintiff rests was executed and signed by the plaintiff himself and not PW-1.
26. This Court further proceeds to discuss the law entailed under Order III Rule 1 and 2 CPC with respect to the recognized agents of the parties and the manner and the extent to which they can depose on behalf of the executant of such authority.
Order III Rule 1 and 2 CPC is as under:
1. Appearances, etc, may be in person, by recognised agent or by pleader-
Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorised 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 recognised agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf:
Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.
2. Recognized agents - The recognized agent of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are-Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:17:09 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 14 of 24
(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising 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 authorised to make and do such appearances, applications and acts."
27. Further, this Court deems it fit to place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani Vs Indusind Bank Ltd., wherein it was held that:
"Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empower the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. It is held that the word "acts" employed in Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC confines only to 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. It is held that Power-Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:17:16 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 15 of 24 of-Attorney holder cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him."
"The power of attorney holder does not have the personal knowledge of the matter of the appellants and therefore he can neither depose on his personal knowledge nor can he be cross-examined on those facts which are to the personal knowledge of the principal. 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, Rules 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. Apart from what has been stated, this Court in the RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:17:21 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 16 of 24 case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 573 observed at page 583 SCC that "where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct". In civil dispute the conduct of the parties is material. The appellants have not approached the Court with clean hands.
From the conduct of the parties it is apparent that it was a ploy to salvage the property from sale in the execution of Decree. On the question of power of attorney, the High Courts have divergent views. In the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1986 2WLL 713 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. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A general power of attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff.
The aforesaid judgment was quoted with the Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 15:17:28 Date: 2026.05.26 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 17 of 24 approval in the case of Ram Prasad Vs. Hari Narain & Ors. AIR 1998 Raj. 185. It was held that the word "acts" used in Rule 2 of Order III of the CPC does not include the act of power of attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party. Power of attorney holder of a party can appear only as a witness in his personal capacity and whatever knowledge he has about the case he can state on oath but be cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of that party. If the plaintiff is unable to appear in the court, a commission for recording his evidence may be issued under the relevant provisions of the CPC."
28. At this stage court further deems it fit to discuss the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Man Kaur(dead) by LRs Vs Hartar Singh Sangha:
(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 Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:17:33 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 18 of 24 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 RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:17:40 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 19 of 24 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 Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 15:17:46 Date: 2026.05.26 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 20 of 24 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.
29. Further in the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 2 WLN 713 (Raj) 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. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A general power of attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff.
Digitally signed byRICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 15:17:53 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 21 of 24 The aforesaid judgment was quoted with the approval in the case of Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain - AIR 1998 Raj 185. It was held that the word "acts" used in Rule 2 of Order III of the CPC does not include the act of power of attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party. Power of attorney holder of a party can appear only as a witness in his personal capacity and whatever knowledge he has about the case he can state on oath but be cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of that party. If the plaintiff is unable to appear in the court, a commission for recording his evidence may be issued under the relevant provisions of the CPC. ....
We hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri followed and reiterated in the case of Ramprasad is the correct view."
In Shankar Finance & Investments vs. State of AP - (2008) 8 SCC 536, this Court explained in what circumstances, the evidence of an attorney holder would be relevant, while dealing with a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 signed by the attorney holder of the payee. This Court held :
"A power of attorney holder of the complainant, who does not have personal knowledge, cannot be examined. But where the attorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 15:18:06 Date: 2026.05.26 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 22 of 24 the complainant and the attorney holder alone is personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the complainant payee, there is no reason why the attorney holder cannot be examined as the complainant....."
30. Thus, as per the law laid as above, the power of attorney holder can examine himself only to the extent of transaction carried out by him, otherwise his evidence is nothing but a formal one. Power of attorney cannot examine himself on behalf of the original plaintiff. In the case in hand, the plaintiff has not appeared even to prove the facts which were exclusive to his knowledge including the business transactions being entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, raising of the invoices, the preparation of the ledger account, the GST certificates, the certificate under Sec. 63 of BSA and these were primarily documents on which the claim of the plaintiff rests. In the absence of the said documents being proved by the plaintiff himself, the same have remained unproved. Moreover, the plaintiff also did not step into the witness box to subject himself to the litmus test of cross-examination for the purpose of culling out the authenticity of the documents relied upon.
31. Thus, as a sequel to the above discussion and applying the law as laid in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted as above to the facts of the this case, this Court finds no hesitation in deducing, that the case of the plaintiff entirely rests upon the documents which Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.26 15:18:13 +0530 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 23 of 24 were executed by the plaintiff and were within the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff.
Now, in order to prove these documents it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have stepped into the witness box and to have proved the same. The son of the plaintiff i.e. PW-1 Sh. Pulkit Jindal admittedly has no knowledge with respect to these documents and thus he cannot prove the documents for which he was neither the executant nor were those documents within the personal knowledge of PW-1.
RELIEF
32. As a sequel to the above discussions and finding, this Court is of the opinion, that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared.
33. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Court RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.26 on 26.05.2026 15:18:20 +0530 (Richa Sharma) Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC THC / Delhi /26.05.2026 Civil Suit No.1589/2024 Sh. Anil Jindal Vs. Sh. Baljit Singh Sodhi Page 24 of 24