SAMSUDDIN Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the interest of justice and for avoiding the obstruction to the hearing of the suit before the trial Court, this petition is decided hereby finally at motion hearing stage.

(2.) THE petitioner happens to be a plaintiff in the matter of Civil Suit No. 230-A/96. He appointed a person named Iqbalkhan as the holder of his general power of attorney to appear and act on his behalf in the matter of said suit before the trial Court i. e. , Civil Judge Class I, Indore, who was to decide the said suit. On 5-2-99 he entered in the witness-box and the Court started recording his evidence. At that time the lawyer representing the opponents raised an objection that said Iqbalkhan was incompetent, to give evidence as he was the holder of General Power of Attorney of the present petitioner. The learned trial Judge after placing the reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court (Single Bench) in the matter Ramprasad v. Harinarain and Ors. , reported in AIR 1998 Raj 185. concluded that said Iqbalkhan was incompetent to give evidence on behalf of present petitioner. He thus, stopped recording the evidence of said Iqbalkhan by passing an Order dated 3-2-99 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present, petition.

(3.) SHRI A. S. Garg by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Mangalia v. Prabhu, reported in 1999 (1) MPWN Note 178 Page 265, submitted that the view taken by the trial Court is totally erroneous and not consistent with the provisions of law as indicated by Order 3 Rule 2 C. P. C. He submitted that the Order which has been challenged in the revision petition be set-aside and appropriate Order be passed by allowing this revision petition.