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

1997 Supreme(Raj) 576

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
Ram Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Hari Narain – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ajeet Bhandari, for Petitioner Kanta Prasad Sharma, for Non-Petitioners

Honble SHARMA, J.–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-petitioners (for short the defendants). The defendants filed 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 appea













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