SAHIB SINGH SABI Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is impugning the order dtd. 15/7/2022 passed by the learned Trial Court vide which the application for rejection of the plaintiff's affidavit was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. He has vehemently argued that the suit in question had been filed by the respondent/plaintiff through his power of attorney holder Balbir Singh. The said attorney holder had appeared in witness box as PW-2 and tendered his duly sworn affidavit in his examination-in-chief wherein he had categorically stated that he was fully conversant with the facts of the case. Not only this, thereafter said Balbir Singh was cross-examined by the counsel of the petitioner/defendant as well. However, subsequently to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent/plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and tendered his duly sworn affidavit in his examination-in-chief. Learned counsel has urged that once the attorney holder through whom the suit in question had been instituted and who while stepping into the witness box as PW-2 had categorically deposed that he was fully conversant with the facts of the case, therefore, the plaintiff in the circumstances could not subsequently get himself examined in support of his case. He has also submitted that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that it was nothing but an attempt by the plaintiff to fill in the lacunae in the testimony of the attorney holder Balbir Singh. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Leela Vijay Kumar Vs. Smt. Pooja P Kamath : 2019(2) AIR Kar R 111.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material on record.