SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
Ram Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Hari Narain – Respondent
(2). This question arises in the following circumstances:
(i) The plaintiff-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for injunction and possession of the property against the defendant non-petitioners (for short the defendants). The defendants filed written statement and issues were framed by the learned trial court. The case, therefore, was posted for recording the evidence of the plaintiff.
(ii) The plaintiff, in the meanwhile, moved an application praying that his son Satya Narayan, being his general power of attorney holder, may be allowed to appear as witness on his behalf. The defendant contested the said application. The learned trial court vide its order dated November 15, 1996 dismissed the said application. Hence this revision.
(3). Before adverting to the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to relevant statutory provisions.
(4). Rule 2 of Order 3 of Code of Civil Procedure provides thus:–
``Recognised agents.–The recognised agents of parties by whom such appea
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.