High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.K.SHARMA
RAM PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
HARI NARAIN - Respondent
C. R. P. 1819 Of 1996
Decided On : 08/01/1997
CIVIL PROCEDURE - POWER OF ATTORNEY - WITNESS - APPEARANCE - A power-of-attorney holder of a party cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the said party. He can only appear in his own capacity.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an old man suffering from severe sensory normal hearing loss, authorized his son Satyanarayan to act on his behalf and executed a general power of attorney in his favor. The plaintiff moved an application praying that his son be allowed to appear as a witness on his behalf, which was dismissed by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a power-of-attorney holder of a party cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the said party. He can only appear in his own capacity and state on oath whatever he has knowledge about the case.
Issues: Whether a power-of-attorney holder of a party is entitled to appear as a witness on behalf of the said party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 2 of Order 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and held that the word "acts" used in Rule 2 of Order 3 Code of Civil Procedure does not include the act of power-of-attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order was upheld.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
A power-of-attorney holder of a party cannot appear as a witness on behalf of that party. They can only appear in their personal capacity and testify about what they personally know (!) (!) .
The relevant statutory provisions include Rule 2 of Order 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, which recognizes agents holding powers of attorney to make appearances and perform acts on behalf of parties, but does not explicitly include the act of appearing as a witness (!) (!) .
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act states that all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding questions or giving rational answers due to age, disease, or other causes (!) .
The court emphasized that the word "acts" in Rule 2 of Order 3 does not encompass the act of a power-of-attorney holder appearing as a witness on behalf of a party. Such a witness must testify in their own capacity, not as a representative of the party (!) .
If a party is unable to appear in court due to reasons such as old age or deafness, provisions exist to facilitate their testimony, such as issuing a commission for recording evidence or using alternative methods like sign language or written statements, in accordance with the Evidence Act (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's decision, and clarified that the act of a power-of-attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party is not permissible under the relevant legal provisions (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
S. K. SHARMA, J.
( 1 ) CORE question that springing for consideration in this revision is as to whether power-of-attorney holder of a party is entitled to appear as a witness on behalf of the said party?
( 2 ) THIS question arises in the following circumstances. (I) The plaintiff-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for injunction and possession of the property against the defendant non-petitioner (for short the defendants ). The defendants files written statement and issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The case, therefore, was posted for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. (II) The plaintiff, in the meanwhile, moved an application praying that his son Satya Narayan, being his general power-of-attorney holder, may be allowed to appear as witness on his behalf. The defendant contested the said application. The learned trial Court vide its order dated November 15, 1996 dismissed the said application. Hence this revision.
( 3 ) BEFORE adverting to the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to relevant statutory provisions.
( 4 ) RULE 2 of Order 3 of Code of Civil Procedure provides thus :-"recognised agents- The recognised agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done. (a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;
( 5 ) SECTION 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides thus :-"all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. "[emphasis supplied]
( 6 ) MR. Ajeet Bhandari learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, canvassed that the plaintiff is an old man and he is unable to appear in the Court. He is suffering from severe sensory normal hearing loss and has become deaf. Therefore, he has authorised his son Satyanarayan to act on his behalf and executed a general power of attorney in his favour. Learned counsel placed photo copy of judgment of this Court (in S. B. Revision No. 805/85 Roop Chand v. Narayan Lal decided on 9-1-1986 by Honble Mr. Dwarka Prasad, J. as he then was), in which this Court observed as under :-"thus the defendant is entitled to examine either Roop Chand or his power of attorney holder Kistoor Chand as a witness, even though his name has not been mentioned in the list of witnesses. "
( 7 ) IT is evident that in Roop Chand v. Narayan Lal (supra) this Court was only examining the question of inclusion of name of witness in the list and only a passing remark was made in respect of examination of power of attorney holder or the party. Neither the provisions contained in Order 3, Rule 2 were discussed nor the word "acts" was interpreted.
( 8 ) ON the other hand Mr. Kanta Prasad Sharma learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 2 WLN 713, where this Court (Honble Dinker Lal Mehta, J. as he then was) in para No. 23 of the judgment propounded as under :-"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. "
( 9 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the impugned order as well as the authorities cited before me. I am of the considered view that word "acts" used in Rule 2 of Order 3 Code of Civil Procedure does not include the act of power-of- attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf
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.