SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Raj) 181

JAGAT NARAYAN
Govind Narain – Appellant
Versus
Chhoti Devi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.L. Agarwal, for Smt. Chhoti Devi; J.P. Jain, for Govind Narain

JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—These two revision applications can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment as the same question of law arises in them. That question in whether a recognised agent of a party can cross-examine a witness of the opposite party.

2. In both the cases a hand-writing expert was examined on behalf of one party and the permission of the court was sought for his cross-examination by another hand-writing expert on behalf of the other party holding a power of attorney. The permission was refused by the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, in one case (Civil Revision No. 521/1964), but was granted by the District Judge, Jaipur City, in. the other case (Civil Revision No. 18 of 1965).

3. Order 3, Rule 1 C.P.C. lays down that any appearance, application or act in or to any court, required or authorised by law to be made or done by a party in such court may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by his recognised agent or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf. Persons holding powers of attorney authorising them to make and do such appearance, applications and acts on behalf of a par





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top