Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Sri. P. Sukumaran Nair, who represented the revision petitioners, submitted that the impugned order is illegal and works out gross injustice. He points out that in the nature of the case, it is essential that the 1st defendant himself should be examined in so far as the relevant aspects to be brought out are matters within the knowledge of the 1st defendant alone personally. It is also pointed out that this is of utmost importance because the defendants have failed to answer properly the interrogatories served on them and a viva voce examination as allowed under O. 11 R. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is essential in the circumstances. Yet another contention is that the agent - Sri. S. Parameswaran Nair admittedly is a person who has knowledge about the affairs of the Royal Family only from the year 1997 and as such one totally incompetent to speak about the details relating to the agreement to sell executed between the parties on 4.7.1993 and of subsequent events of vital importance. The learned counsel further submits that the Power-of-Attorney originally executed by the defendants 2 to 5 in favour of the 1st defendant having been subsequently revoked, the 1st defendant himself was not competent to represent the defendants 2 to 5 and that as such the question of Sri. S. Parameswaran Nair deposing on behalf of the defendants 2 to 5 does not arise at all. All the same, the plaintiffs have no objection in the said Parameswaran Nair being examined as a witness for the defendants; but as made clear at the Bar, that is not what the defendants want. They want examination of the said person as their agent for and on their behalf.

12. By virtue of O. 3 R. 2 CPC aforementioned, a power-of-attorney holder is certainly recognised agents who can, under R. 1 act in any court on behalf of a party, the only limitation being that where it is expressly provided by any law that the party should himself do the act, it has to be so done.

13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of answers given to the interrogatories served on the defendants and emphasised the need to make the defendants face a viva voce examination under O. 11 R. 11 CPC which provision provides as follows:

11. Order to answer or answer further.-Where any person interrogated omits to answer, or answers insufficiently, the party interrogating may apply to the court for an order requiring him to answer, or to answer further, as the case may be. And an order may be made requiring him to answer or answer further either by affidavit or by viva voce examination, as the court may direct."

14. There is no doubt at all that if motion is made under O.11 R. 11 CPC and the court is convinced that there is unsatisfactory answers to the interrogatories served and in spite of further opportunity to answer further, the same situation continues, it can direct the 1st defendant to appear in person for viva voce examination. However, that is not a matter which can be collaterally gone into in the present revision. That is an aspect which is to be dealt with as and when the plaintiffs move under O. 11, R. 11 of the CPC. The liability to appear for viva voce examination will not in any way be erased or eclipsed by the grant of permission to give evidence in the case on behalf of the donor to the Power-of-Attorney holder.