SHRIMATI SITA DEVI AGRAWAL Vs. SARVJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 06.03.2019 by which the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 3 Rule 1 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected by learned trial Court finding no merit.

(2.) Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application under Order 3 Rule 1 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs on untenable grounds. He would further submit that the power of attorney holder is the son of plaintiff No.1 and nephew of plaintiff No.2 therefore, in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512 the power of attorney holder can depose on behalf of plaintiffs, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Mrs. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the trial court is absolutely justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, as that application was filed to delay the progress of the trial, as the suit is pending consideration since 01.11.2008. She would further submit that in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of S. Kesari Hanuman Goud v. Anjum Jehan, (2013) 12 SCC 64, the power of attorney holder cannot be examined in place of principal, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.