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 be read at all. Power of Attorney as executed by Kailashi Devi had been placed on record. The only point involved in the present case is whether in the case the plaintiff does not appear as his/her witness but produces the evidence or through Power of Attorney, can it be said that the evidence of such Power of Attorney is no evidence in place of the plaintiff or that non-appearance of the plaintiff itself shall tentamount to taking adverse inference against such party.

(3). Reliance is placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Humberto Luis & anr. vs. Floriano Armando Luis & Anr. (2) and Parikh Amratlal Ramanlal Trustee and Administrator of Sanskrit Pathshala Institution and others vs. Rami Mafatlal Girdharilal and others (3).

(4). The Bombay High Court in the case of Humberto Luis (supra) observed that while adjudging the competency of the witness i.e. holder of power of attorney, after discussing the provisions of Order III Rule 1 and Order XVIII CPC r/w Section 118 of the Evidence Act which clearly provided that all persons are 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 the tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. It was held that the competency of a person to testify as a witness is different from that of credibility of the testimony of the witness. It is true that the testimony of such person will definitely be subject to the scrutiny in the manner provided in the provisions contained in Section 60 of the Evidence Act viz. a viz. credibility of such testimony and not relating to the competency of a person to depose on behalf of some other person. It was further observed that it cannot be concluded that the provisions contained in Order III Rule 1 of CPC would restrict the powers of holder of Power of Attorney to depose on behalf of the plaintiff in relation to the matter in issue before the Court. Being so, the finding arrived at by the trial court that the deposition of such witness on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis of Power of Attorney clearly amounts to pleading on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the finding that recognised agents cannot step into the shoes of the plaintiff in order to depose on behalf of the plaintiff could be sustained and were liable to be set aside. It was further held that under Order III Rule 1 CPC, a direction to the plaintiff to step into the witness box can be given only in justifiable cases and not as a matter of course. It is primarily for the party to the suit to decide whether to appear in person to depose in relation to the facts of the matter or not. It is for the court to draw necessary inference in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document