RAMJILAL CHANDIL Vs. RAMKATORI AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 20.1.2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 16 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, Annexure P/5, is rejected by the court below.

(2.) IN a suit for eviction and recovery of rent, the petitioner/ defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. Thereafter, he filed an application under Order 16 Rule 14, CPC, Annexure P/5. The plaintiff filed reply to this application on 12.1.2015, Annexure P/6. The court below initially framed the issues on 14.10.2010 (Annexure P/7) and then added additional issues on 25.4.2012.

(3.) SHRI Abhishek Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the plaintiff engaged Dinesh Chandra as power of attorney holder. By taking this Court to various judgments of Supreme Court, it is contended that power of attorney holder can play a limited role. He, at best, can be a witness to execution of power of attorney and not to the contents of plaint. Reliance is placed on (A.C.Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014 AIR(SC) 630). Shri Bhadoriya further submits that the court below has rejected the application on erroneous and irrelevant grounds. It is contended that the rejection is based on additional issues framed by the trial court, which is totally relevant for the purpose of deciding the application in question. Lastly, it is contended that finding of court below that said additional issues were required to be proved by the defendant is bad in law.