Siddhesh Mishra vs Smt. Kiran Mishra And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1034 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2455 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Siddhesh Mishra
 
Respondent :- Smt. Kiran Mishra And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Maseeh,Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Shruti Taneja
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 

The petitioner, who is a tenant and a defendant to SCC Suit No.75 of 2015, has objected to an affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff-landlady by her husband. The aforesaid objection has been rejected by the Trial Judge and the tenant's Revision has been dismissed by the District Judge of Allahabad vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2022. Before this Court, Mr. W.S.Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vociferously argued that the plaintiff ought to testify herself and her husband cannot be a witness on her behalf. He has further submitted that the power of attorney held by the husband also does not enable him to act as a witness on behalf of his wife. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and Another, 1999 (3) SCC 573, to submit that a party, who does not appear in the witness box and support his/her case on oath and offer himself/herself for cross-examination by the other, faces the presumption that the case set up by him is incorrect.

Ms. Shruti Taneja, has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent and opposes the motion to admit this petition to hearing.

I have considered the petitioner's contention very carefully. The orders impugned are interlocutory orders. It is not at all appropriate for this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with an interlocutory order, particularly one which is not an order of moment or one that by itself decides rights of parties. If what the petitioner urges is correct, the petitioner would suffer consequences of non-appearance in the witness box, but to upset that order and exclude the husband's affidavit would be creating an unnecessary hurdle in the trial, the result of which, is not yet known. It will of-course be open to the petitioner to raise this objection in case the event in the suit goes against him.

Subject to the above clarification, no case for interference with the order impugned is made out.

This petition fails and is dismissed.

Costs easy.

Order Date :- 8.4.2022

NSC