IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CR-1088-2026 Date of decision: 03.02.2026 Harcharan Singh and another . . . . Petitioners Vs.

Gurmeet Singh and others . . . . Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. Arshnoor Singh Chugh and Mr. Pragun Goyal, Advocates, for the petitioners.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The petitioners herein are some of the plaintiffs in Civil Suit bearing No. CS-918-2016 titled Harcharan Singh and others v. Gurmeet Singh and others, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by order dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby their application seeking rejection/discarding of the affidavit tendered as examination-in-chief by the Special Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.13 has been dismissed.

2. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs for possession by way of partition. During the course of proceedings, defendant No.13 chose to lead his evidence through his Special Power of Attorney holder, namely Ram Kumar, who tendered his affidavit as examination-in-chief on behalf of defendant No.13. The plaintiffs-petitioners objected to the same by filing an application, contending that defendant No.13 ought to have appeared in the witness-box himself. The said objection, however, has been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

I agree to specified portions of this document

3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that defendant No.13 had earlier been participating in the proceedings personally, but at the stage of evidence, he avoided entering the witness-box and instead executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of another person. It is argued that this course of action would deprive the plaintiffs of their right to effectively cross-examine defendant No.13 on facts which are within his personal knowledge. 4. The contention does not merit acceptance.

5. There is no statutory prohibition under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against a party leading evidence through a duly constituted Power of Attorney holder. The law is well settled that a Power of Attorney holder is competent to depose on behalf of the principal with regard to acts done by him or facts within his personal knowledge. The admissibility of such evidence cannot be rejected at the threshold merely on the ground that the principal has not himself stepped into the witness-

box.

6. As rightly noticed by the learned Trial Court, the evidentiary value of the testimony of a Power of Attorney holder is a matter to be assessed at the stage of final adjudication. If, during cross-examination, the Power of Attorney holder fails to answer questions relating to facts exclusively within the knowledge of the principal, it would always be open to the Court to draw an adverse inference against the party concerned. However, such a possibility cannot be a ground to discard the affidavit or testimony at the inception itself.

7. The judgment Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. and others, (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217 relied upon by the petitioners does not advance their case. The principle laid down therein does not bar examination of a Power of Attorney holder altogether; rather, it only circumscribes the extent to which such a witness can depose, depending upon his personal knowledge of the facts. That principle stands fully safeguarded by permitting cross-examination and by leaving it to the trial Court to evaluate the evidentiary worth of the testimony.

8. The learned Trial Court has thus exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with settled legal principles. No perversity, illegality, or material irregularity has been shown in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory or revisional jurisdiction.

9. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

03.02.2026 JUDGE (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)

Whe