OMKAR SINGH TYAGI Vs. ALOKJAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is one of the defendants in O.S. No. 248 of 2004. Surendra Kumar Jain since deceased and survived by legal representatives v. Sri Omkar Singh Tyagi and others. After the death of the original plaintiff, his son Alok Jain and daughter Alka Jain have been substituted at his place. One V.K. Singh offered himself to be examined as witness at the place of plaintiff No. 1/1, Alok Jain on the ground that Alok Jain had executed power-of-attorney in his favour for the said purpose. Defendant filed an application stating that Alok Jain had never appeared in the suit and power-of-attorney in favour of V.K. Singh was not filed in the original (only photostat copy had been filed) hence Alok Jain must be directed to appear before the court and verify the correctness of power-of-attorney. The said application has been rejected by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 4, Meerut on 8.8.2012. Against the said order petitioner filed revision being Revision No. NIL of 2012. District Judge, Meerut held that the revision being directed against interlocutory order was not maintainable. Both the orders have been challenged through this writ petition. In my opinion, revisional court's order is correct. There is no fault in it. As far as the order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the trial court is concerned. I do not find any such error in the said order, which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The question that what is the value of photostat copy of power of attorney may be decided, if necessary at the time of final decision of the suit.

(2.) A party to a suit can examine any witness even without executing any power-of-attorney. Executing power-of-attorney for giving evidence is virtually meaningless. If a fact is to be proved by plaintiff or defendant by himself no one else can prove the said fact. There is no provision of giving evidence by a witness on behalf of another witness. It becomes hearsay and inadmissible. In respect of deposition of power-of-attorney holder at the place of the party to a suit, reference may be made to the authority of Supreme Court in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, 2010 10 SCC 512

(3.) The trial court while deciding the suit shall assess the value of evidence of Sri V.K. Singh, the alleged power-of-attorney holder and effect of non-examination of plaintiff as witness, if none of the plaintiffs is examined as witness, in the light of the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court. Writ petition is disposed of.