Smt. Rameshwari Gupta W/O ... vs Kailash Chand Shahra S/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7542 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11439/2021

Smt. Rameshwari Gupta W/o Radheyshyam Gupta, Aged About
69 Years, Resident Of Near Khadi Bhandar, Sikandara Road,
Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa Through Power Of Attor-
ney Holder Sh. Radheyshyam Gupta S/o Late Sh. Shambhu
Dayal, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Opposite Lane Of The
Post Office, Nai Basti, Ramganj, Ajmer.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Kailash Chand Shahra S/o Kishansahay Shahra, Resident
       Of Near Madaan Nursing Home, Water Works Colony,
       Bandikui Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Raj.
2.     Suresh Chand Shahara S/o Kailashchand, Resident Of
       Near   Madaan       Nursing       Home,        Water     Works   Colony,
       Bandikui Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Raj.
3.     Sarju Devi W/o Kailashchand Shahara, Resident Of Near
       Madaan Nursing Home, Water Works Colony, Bandikui
       Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Raj.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bipin Gupta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

30/11/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated

17.09.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bandikui, District

Dausa in Civil Suit No.37/2010, whereby the application filed by

petitioner-plaintiff for examine his Power of Attorney holder in her

place as a witness, was dismissed.

(2 of 3) [CW-11439/2021]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

had filed the civil suit against the respondents in which petitioner

had filed the application before the trial court for adducing

evidence in place of her by Power of Attorney Prakash Chand

Gupta. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

petitioner is an old lady and suffering from various ailments. She

is not in position to move. Medical prescription is also annexed

with the petition. So, in the interest of justice, order of trial court

be set aside and trial court be directed to allow the Power of Attor-

ney of the petitioner for giving evidence in place of her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

the judgments passed by this Court of Kailashi Devi Vs.

Matadeen Agrawal reported in 2001 LawSuit(Raj) 310,

Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sh. Nathu Lal Jain reported in 1999

LawSuit(Raj) 138, Gulab Devi Vs. Bhagwan Sahai reported in

1970 LawSuit(Raj) 70 and the judgment passed by the Apex

Court in the case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi & Ors.

reported in (2016) 3 SCC 78.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that trial court had given various opportunity to

petitioner for adducing the evidence but petitioner was not present

for the evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that petitioner had filed the application before the trial court for

taking her evidence on Commissioner. The said application was

also dismissed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the

respondents also submitted that it is settle proposition of law that

Power of Attorney holder cannot give evidence on behalf of the

(3 of 3) [CW-11439/2021]

petitioner. So, trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by

the petitioner. So, the petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance

upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo

Bhojwani and Anr. Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. reported in

AIR 2005 SCC 439 :: 2004 AIR SCW 7064 and Man Kaur

(deceased by Lrs.) Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha reported in 2010

AIR SCW 6198 :: 2011 (2) AIR Jhar R 339.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondents and perused the impugned order.

Trial court in its order clearly stated that as per order 3 Rule

2 CPC, Power of Attorney holder cannot give the evidence on

behalf of plaintiff and also stated that Power of Attorney can give

evidence on his personal capacity. In my considered opinion, trial

court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. So,

the present petition is, being devoid of merits and liable to be

dismissed.

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/26

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)