Back
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
| 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.
Elderly plaintiffs may be allowed to testify through special attorneys without mandatory personal appearance, balancing representation rights with the need for direct knowledge during cross-examinati....
Witness testimony cannot be replaced unless substantial medical evidence of incapacity is provided; the trial court's decision upheld as valid.
A Power of Attorney holder may manage proceedings but cannot testify on behalf of the principal for acts beyond their knowledge or where the principal must be cross-examined.
The authority of a Special Power of Attorney holder is limited to prosecution and does not extend to giving evidence on behalf of the principal.
Plaintiff has not appeared in witness box and statement given by GPA holder cannot be substituted for statement of plaintiff and for this reason also adverse inference can also be drawn against plain....
A Power of Attorney holder cannot depose for a plaintiff unless exceptional circumstances are proved.
The power of attorney holder cannot depose for the principal in matters of which the principal alone can have personal knowledge.
The assessment of a witness's personal knowledge must occur after evidence is presented, not at the application stage under Order III Rule 2 of CPC.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
