Honble VERMA, J.–This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff Kailashi Devi. The plaintiff had filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm against the respondent defendants. The suit was filed by Rishi Jain in the capacity of Power of Attorney of Kailashi Devi. Rishi Jain had examined himself as plaintiff witness No.l. Objection was raised to the effect that he is not the original plaintiff and, therefore, Rishi Jain cannot lead evidence in place of the plaintiff. His objection was accepted vide Order dated 30.5.2000 and the trial court had declined to read the statement of Rishi Jain in place of Kailashi Devi and ordered that Kailashi Devi should be present in the court to lead evidence. Against the order dated 30.5.2000 the present revision petition has been filed.

(2). It is the contention that the original suit was filed by Kailashi Devi through Rishi Jain, Power of Attorney. It is further submitted that the authority, Ram Prasad Vs. Hari Narain and Others (1) for the aforesaid proposition, is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the material irregularity has been committed by the trial court by ordering that the evidence of Rishi Jain shall not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document