Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiya Lal Payasi vs Smt. Sangeeta Tripathi on 18 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38851
1 MP-2031-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2031 of 2025
BHAIYA LAL PAYASI AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SANGEETA TRIPATHI
Appearance:
Shri Dhanajay Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure P/3)
passed by the II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satna, District Satna in RCSA
No. 124/2023, whereby the objection raised by the petitioners/defendants that
the husband being power of attorney of the plaintiffs cannot adduce evidence
in place of the respondents/plaintiffs, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the power of attorney holder, who is also a husband of the respondent/wife,
can adduce evidence only in respect of any transaction/act which is done
consequent to the power of attorney. The suit has been filed for permanent
injunction in regard to a dispute arose between the parties in respect of
installation of Tullu Pump and therefore, the evidence of the factual matrix
can be led only by the respondents/plaintiffs and not by the husband.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38851
2 MP-2031-2025
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Man Kaur (Dead)
by LRS vs. Hartar Singh Sangha reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512 to state that
in the similar circumstances the Apex Court has laid down the principles in
respect of adducing of evidence by the power of attorney holder. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 18 has held as under:-
"18. We may now summaries for convenience, the position as to
who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal
knowledge:
(a) An attorney-holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the
suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only
give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney
and the filing of the suit.
(b) If the attorney-holder has done any act or handled any
transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the
principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or
transactions. If the attorney-holder alone has personal knowledge
of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney-
holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be
proved.
(c) The attorney-holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of
his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or
dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal
knowledge.
(d) Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled
or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no personal
knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has
been handled by an attorney-holder, necessarily the attorney-
holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction. This
frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business
through authorised managers/attorney-holders or persons residing
abroad managing their affairs through their attorney-holders.
(e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a
particular attorney-holder, the principal has to examine that
attorney-holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or
subsequent attorney-holder.
(f) Where different attorney-holders had dealt with the matter at
different stages of the transaction, if evidence has to be led as to
what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney-holders
will have to be examined.
(g) Where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other
party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with
reference to his "state of mind" or "conduct", normally the person
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38851
3 MP-2031-2025
concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney-holder.
A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his
"bona fide" need and a purchaser seeking specific performance
who has to show his "readiness and willingness" fall under this
category. There is however a recognised exception to this
requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely
managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may
happen to be a close family member), it may be possible to accept
the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bona fides or
"readiness and willingness". Examples of such attorney-holders
are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her
spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old
and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs
of a son/daughter living abroad."
On the basis of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the impugned order
is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. It is evident from the impugned order that the learned court below
has observed that the suit for permanent injunction has been filed on the
basis of the facts narrated in paras-7 and 8, which confirms the presence of
the husband, who is also a power of attorney of the respondents/plaintiffs and
therefore, the evidence, which is to be adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, is
also in the personal knowledge of the husband. The Hon'ble Apex Court,
while laying down the Principle (g) in paragraph-18, has categorically held
that where all the affairs of the parties are completely managed, transacted
and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family
member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even
with reference to bona fides or 'readiness and willingness'. Examples of such
attorney holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of
his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and
infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38851
4 MP-2031-2025
son/daughter living abroad.
6 . On the basis of aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the husband, who is also an attorney,
having some personal knowledge in regard to the incident by which the
cause of action to file suit has been accrued, can give evidence on behalf of
the respondents/plaintiffs. Therefore, the observation, which has been made
by the learned counsel below, is absolutely in consonance with law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. There is no infirmity in the impugned
order and cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
7. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
