Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 1605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Malkiat Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
Paramjit Kaur - Respondent
CR-7011-2025
Decided On : 30-09-2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Representation and Witness Testimony
Headnote
(B) Legal representation - The court underscored that allowing representation through a special attorney respects the plaintiff's age and incapacity while ensuring fairness in proceedings. (Paras 3-4)
(C) Court discretion - The respondent was allowed to seek relief if aggrieved by the court's decision by proceeding appropriately. (Para 6)
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhishek Khullar, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is an 80 years old lady in a civil suit. (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel argues for exemption from personal appearance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court finds merit in petitioner's request. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. respondent may appeal if aggrieved by the order. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit bearing CS-4650-2023 before Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana and is aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby though application to depose through her special power of attorney holder has been allowed, but at the same me, she had been directed to appear in person for the purpose of cross-examination.
2. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel contends that Petitioner is an 80 years old lady and it is specifically mentioned in the application (Annexure P-2) that being 80 years of age, she was unable to attend the Court proceedings and as such, she has appointed her daughter Smt. Kulwinder Kaur as lawful special power of attorney. Said fact is also duly mentioned in the special power of attorney (Annexure P-3).
3. Learned counsel further contends that in case, the special attorney of petitioner-plaintiff is unable to answer any question, which was to the personal knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner, it is she who is likely to suffer and for this reason only, she could not be directed to appear in person, for the purpose of cross-examination otherwise it will defeat the very purpose of moving the application and depose through the attorney .
4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the Petitioner has merit.
5. This petition is disposed of by directing the Ld. Trial Court to record the statement of petitioner-plaintiff through her special power of attorney , as prayed by her. In case, said attorney is unable to answer any question, which is to the specific knowledge to the plaintiff-petitioner, it is the plaintiff who shall suffer, but for that reason only, she could not be asked to appear in person for the purpose of cross-examination.
6. Since, this order has been passed without issuing any notice to the respondent, lest it may delay the matter before the trial Court, the respondent shall be at liberty to approach this Court in case, she feels aggrieved.
