Back
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Shaheen @ Hanifa – Appellant
Versus
Shivakumar – Respondent
ORDER :
(Suraj Govindaraj, J.)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
b) Pass such order or orders which this Hon'ble court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.292/2018 seeking for specific performance against the defendants. In the said suit, an application in I.A.No.3 under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") was filed seeking permission of the Court to lead oral and documentary evidence through her husband and a special power of attorney. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 30.11.2020 on the ground that the special power of attorney cannot depose in a matter if he does not have personal knowledge. It is challenging the said order the petitioner is before this court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Girish Yadwad submits that whether the power of attorney has special knowledge or not can only be established during the course of evidence-in-chief and cross-exami
The assessment of a witness's personal knowledge must occur after evidence is presented, not at the application stage under Order III Rule 2 of CPC.
A Power of Attorney holder may manage proceedings but cannot testify on behalf of the principal for acts beyond their knowledge or where the principal must be cross-examined.
A Power of Attorney holder cannot depose for a plaintiff unless exceptional circumstances are proved.
Plaintiff has not appeared in witness box and statement given by GPA holder cannot be substituted for statement of plaintiff and for this reason also adverse inference can also be drawn against plain....
A Power of Attorney holder can only give formal evidence about the validity of the Power of Attorney and filing of a legal proceeding when he has no personal knowledge of the transactions of the prin....
Parties in a civil suit can be summoned as witnesses under the CPC, but compelling testimony without sufficient cause violates procedural norms.
Point of Law : Negligence and failure to produce such evidence because of inadvertence/negligence, is not a lawful ground to permit a party to lead the additional evidence within the ambit and scope ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
