JUDGMENT :

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated26-8-2010 passed by the Trial Court by which the Trial Court has held that thehusband of the petitioner though is competent witness under Section 120 of theIndian Evidence Act, yet he cannot be permitted to exhibit and prove thedocument filed by the wife.

The facts,leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitionerhas filed a suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The petitionerfiled certain documents in support of her claim before the Trial Court. Therespondent defendant filed the written statement and contested the claim of thepetitioner. The petitioner filed the examination-in-chief of her husband in theform of affidavit. When the husband of the petitioner was being cross-examinedhe wanted to exhibit certain documents. Thereupon, the Counsel for respondentraised an objection that the petitioner cannot exhibit or prove the document.The Trial Court in view of the objection of the respondent held that though thehusband of the petitioner is competent witness under Section 120 of the IndianEvidence Act, 1872 yet he has not appeared before Court as attorney of theplaintiff and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to exhibit the document.

LearnedCounsel for the appellant submitted that there is no provision of law whichdebars a competent witness to exhibit a document or to prove the document.Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Section1-A of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 and submitted that power of attorneyincludes any instruments empowering a specified person to act for and i