IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Jasmeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd - Respondent
CM(M) 769 of 2022 and CM No.34044 of 2022
Decided on : 04-01-2023
Power of Attorney - Witness - The court directed the power of attorney of the witness to be taken on record and a fresh affidavit of evidence to be filed, subject to costs. The court also directed that the evidence already recorded shall not be read against the Defendant. After hearing the parties, the court expunged the direction not to read the evidence against the Defendant, permitted the filing of a fresh affidavit, and allowed the Petitioner to cross-examine the witness on all aspects of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the trial court's order directing the power of attorney of the witness to be taken on record and a fresh affidavit of evidence to be filed, while also directing that the evidence already recorded shall not be read against the Defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court expunged the direction not to read the evidence against the Defendant, permitted the filing of a fresh affidavit, and allowed the Petitioner to cross-examine the witness on all aspects of the suit, ultimately disposing of the petition and pending application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the directions given by the trial court regarding the power of attorney and the evidence recorded, and the impact of these directions on the Petitioner's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure the Petitioner's ability to address all relevant issues and conduct cross-examination, while also correcting the directions given by the trial court.
Final Decision: The petition, along with the pending application, was disposed of, and the Petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the witness on all aspects of the suit.
JUDGMENT :
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 21.07.2022 whereby the learned Trial Court had directed that the power of attorney of the witness (PW-1) who was the Authorised Representative of the Respondent be taken on record and a fresh affidavit of evidence be filed subject to costs of Rs.3,000/-.
2. Learned counsel submits that simultaneously, by way of the impugned order, learned Trial Court had also directed that the evidence which has already been recorded shall not be read against the Defendant.
3. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court could not have passed the said directions since the vital issues which support the contention of the Petitioner have been diluted in the aforesaid manner and which is to the detriment of the Petitioner.
4. Mr. Babbar, who appears for the Respondent, submits that the witness who had appeared and was cross-examined by the Petitioner was already an Authorised Representative of the Respondent and it is only by way of correction that the power of attorney of the said witness was being sought to be brought on record.
5. Mr. Babbar further submits that filing of the fresh affidavit would in no way obstruct the Petitioner from conducting cross-examination and addressing all the relevant issues that the Petitioner may be aggrieved of.
6. This Court has perused the impugned order as also heard the contentions raised by the parties.
7. After some arguments, learned counsel appearing for the parties consent to the following directions :-
(b). The affidavit, if any, filed on behalf of the Respondent pursuant to the impugned order shall not be taken on record. The Respondent is permitted to file a fresh affidavit or an additional affidavit in support of the power of attorney which was permitted to be filed by way of the impugned order and only to that extent.
(c). The earlier affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the Respondent of PW-1 exhibited and marked as PW1/A shall be read as the original affidavit in evidence coupled with the aforesaid additional evidence.
(d). The Petitioner is permitted to cross-examine PW-1 on the date already fixed i.e. 05.01.2023 before the learned Trial Court on all aspects of the suit.
8. In view of the above, the petition along with pending application stands disposed of.
9. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of allowing the Petitioner to fully address the relevant issues and conduct cross-examination in the case.
The right to cross-examine and usage of previously recorded evidence must be safeguarded despite procedural modifications in witness representation.
A withdrawing of an affidavit during cross-examination is impermissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act, as established by precedent.
A power of attorney cannot substitute for an examination of a party with personal knowledge, but plaintiffs retain the right to call witnesses in their case, ensuring fairness in evidence presentatio....
The court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner's counsel to raise objections and held that completely rejecting the evidence of a party was not the correct procedure to follow in law.
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.
The disputes between the parties should be disposed of on merits rather than on petty technical issues.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.