Can a Power of Attorney Holder Enter the Witness Box for the Main Plaintiff?

In legal proceedings, the question often arises: Can a witness come in the suit in the witness box through Power of Attorney before the main plaintiff? This issue is critical in civil suits where the principal (plaintiff or party) may be unavailable, and a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder steps in. While a PoA holder can assist, their role in giving evidence is strictly limited. This blog explores the legal boundaries, drawing from Supreme Court judgments and key precedents to provide clarity.

Understanding these rules helps litigants avoid procedural pitfalls and ensures evidence admissibility. Note: This is general information based on established case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

Main Legal Finding: Limited Scope of PoA Holder's Testimony

Generally, a witness can give evidence in a suit through a PoA holder, but only within the scope of acts and transactions authorized by the PoA. The PoA holder cannot depose on matters solely within the personal knowledge of the principal unless the evidence pertains to acts or transactions performed by the PoA holder under the granted authority. 2010 7 Supreme 209 2026 1 Supreme 225

Key points include:- A PoA holder may depose only for acts or transactions done in pursuance of the PoA. 2010 7 Supreme 209 2026 1 Supreme 225- The PoA holder cannot depose on matters of which the principal has exclusive personal knowledge. 2026 1 Supreme 225 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 618- Scope is limited to acts under PoA authority; they cannot speak on the principal’s behalf regarding personal knowledge or conduct. 2026 1 Supreme 225 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 618- Evidence from a PoA holder is admissible only to prove acts or transactions in pursuance of the PoA, not facts solely within the principal’s knowledge. 2010 7 Supreme 209

This principle ensures the integrity of testimony, as cross-examination requires personal knowledge.

Detailed Analysis: Supreme Court Clarifications

Scope of Power of Attorney Holder’s Deposition

The Supreme Court in S. Kesari Hanuman Goud vs. Anjum Jehan and others2022 0 Supreme(MP) 618 clearly states:

The power of attorney holder cannot depose in place and instead of the principal. He can only depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.

This is reaffirmed in recent decisions like Rajesh Kumar vs Anand Kumar and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981, which holds:

A Power-of-Attorney holder is thus, not entitled to depose in place of the principal... where the plaintiff refuses to testify, the proxies cannot substitute his personal testimony on key issues within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff. 2026 1 Supreme 225 2010 7 Supreme 209

Evidence in Court and the Role of the Principal

If the principal cannot appear, the PoA holder may testify about PoA-related acts. However, for personal knowledge facts—like ownership, conduct, or state of mind—the principal must testify. 2026 1 Supreme 225 2010 7 Supreme 209

Supporting this, Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v Indusind Bank Ltd & Ors 2005 (2) SCC 217, referenced in 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 51, rules that a general PoA holder can appear, plead, and act but cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. No one can delegate the power to appear in the witness box.

In rent control cases under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, courts have faulted proceedings where the PoA holder (e.g., wife) described herself as the respondent and the principal refused to testify, proving fatal to bona fide need claims. 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 51

Limitations and Clarifications from Case Law

PoA holders face strict limits:- Cannot depose on principal’s personal knowledge, conduct, or state of mind unless tied to PoA acts. 2026 1 Supreme 225- Evidence admissible only for PoA-exercised acts, not principal-exclusive facts. 2010 7 Supreme 209- Consistent across cases like Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan2022 0 Supreme(MP) 618 and Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain2023 0 Supreme(SC) 20.

In 2020 0 Supreme(MP) 461, it's trite law that a PoA holder can enter the witness box to a limited extent and cannot depose on facts without personal knowledge, especially if the principal isn't participating.

Further, in specific performance suits, plaintiffs examining PoA holders instead of themselves fails to prove readiness and willingness—a matter of personal state of mind. As in one case, evidence of the power of attorney holder in respect of matter of the plaintiff’s state of mind i.e. of his readiness and willingness... could not be admissible. 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 154

Brij Mohan Divedi VS Shikhar Chand

In possession disputes, plaintiffs choosing PoA holders over entering the box themselves raised evidentiary issues under Indian Evidence Act Sections 13 and 43. 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1677

Exceptions and Practical Considerations

Limited exceptions exist:- Where the PoA holder manages the entire transaction (e.g., family members), evidence on principal's intent may be accepted insofar as PoA acts. 2026 1 Supreme 225- Principal’s testimony remains necessary for personal knowledge facts like ownership or conduct. 2026 1 Supreme 225

Practically:- Courts scrutinize PoA evidence scope.- In eviction or injunction suits, non-examination of principals via PoA flaws proceedings. 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 51 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1677

Recommendations for Litigants

• Ensure the principal testifies on personal knowledge matters; PoA cannot substitute.
• Limit PoA deposition to authorized acts/transactions.
• Courts must verify evidence aligns with PoA scope.

Key Takeaways

• PoA holders cannot fully replace principals in the witness box—limited to their own PoA-performed acts. 2026 1 Supreme 225 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 618
• Personal knowledge requires principal's testimony to withstand cross-examination.
• Violations lead to evidence rejection, as seen in multiple precedents.

This framework upholds evidentiary fairness. For tailored advice, engage a legal professional familiar with your jurisdiction's nuances.