CHANDRA DUTT Vs. SUNDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi dated 19 -7 -75.

(2.) THE respondent Sunderlal and two others filed a suit against the petitioner Chandra Dutta for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. In the notice dated 15 -12 -75, terminating the tenancy, nr mention was made of the rent note. In the plaint that was presented on 4 -8 -73, it was mentioned that the rent note was not available inspite of search. In the list of documents it was stated that the rent note will be produced when discovered. Upon a direction by the court, the plaintiff gave the particulars as respects the scribe, the (sic) witnesses and the stamp vendor. He also applied for permission to lead secondary evidence. It was objected to by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff must first be required to prove the existence and loss of the document before he could be allowed to lead secondary evidence.

(3.) WHEN the plaintiff began his evidence, he himself did not appear in the witness box but one Prayagdas entered the witness box. He stated that plaintiff Sunderlal was his uncle and he holds the power of attorney Ex. 1 from him. At this stage, the counsel for the defendant objected that the power of attorney does not authorise the witness to tender evidence on behalf of the defendant. The learned trial court objected this objection holding that para No. 1 of the power of attorney spells out an implied authority to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.