Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 justifies the order passed by the Trial Court and contends that the plaintiff having suffered paralysis stroke on 06.06.2023 not having been disputed, the Trial Court was justified in allowing I.A No.18. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and material on record has been perused.

7. The necessary fact situation with regard to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff having been examined as PW.1 and the plaintiff having been partly cross examined is undisputed.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16852

8. It is forthcoming from the affidavit filed in support of I.A No.18 that the GPA holder has deposed that on 06.06.2023 the plaintiff, who is the husband of GPA holder was present in Court and was partly cross examined. On that day, in the evening, the plaintiff suffered a paralysis stroke on his left leg and was hospitalized and treated as an inpatient from 06.06.2023 to 12.06.2023 and thereafter, treated as inpatient in another hospital from 12.06.2023 to 16.06.2023. It is further deposed that the plaintiff is not able to walk and talk properly and his movements are restricted and his behavior is abnormal and hence, it is deposed that the plaintiff being disabled, he is unable to attend the Court. It is further deposed that the plaintiff is not in a position to move and he is suffering from ill-health. It is further forthcoming that the medical records have been produced as Annexure-K and L to the writ petition which discloses that the petitioner has suffered from paralysis stroke.

9. The Trial Court while considering I.A No.18 has noticed that the plaintiff having suffered from paralysis NC: 2024:KHC-D:16852 stroke, has executed power of attorney in favour of his wife and hence, there being no embargo under law to permit the plaintiff to appear as GPA holder has allowed the said application.

10. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the GPA holder is not competent to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and various aspects which are peculiar to the knowledge of the plaintiff are required to be adjudicated in the suit, having regard to the undisputed position that the plaintiff has suffered a paralysis stroke and having regard to the consequential effects of such paralysis stroke as has been deposed in the affidavit filed in support of I.A No.18, which is corroborated by the medical records produced, the Trial Court is justified in allowing I.A No.18. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.