Partly allowed

Smt Raksha Devi v. Shri Pashupati Nath and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Mar 2015CW/5430/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil suit regarding land sale, the High Court of Rajasthan reviewed the rejection of an application by the petitioner to allow her son, who simultaneously holds a power of attorney and is a co-defendant, to testify. The court modified the impugned order permitting testimony but restricted evidence evaluation to his individual capacity, not as the principal's substitute.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.3.2014 was modified to permit Om Dutt Vyas to appear as a witness for the petitioner, clarifying his evidence must be appraised in his individual capacity.

Smt Raksha Devi Vs Shri Pashupati Nath and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR

¶3

S. B. Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on no. 5430/ 2014

¶4

Smt . Raksha Devi Vs. Shr i Pashupat i Nat h & Or s.

¶5

Dat e of or der 24/ 3/ 2015

¶6

HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE J. K. RANKA

¶7

Mr . G. P. Kaushi k, f or t he pet i t i oner . Mr . Ni t i n Jai n, f or t he r espondent s.

¶8

I nst ant wr i t pet i t i on i s di r ect ed agai nst t he or der dt . 29/ 3/ 2014 passed by Addi t i onal Di st r i ct & Sessi ons Judge Kekr i , Di st r i ct Aj mer i n ci vi l sui t no. 1/ 2012 wher eby t he appl i cat i on f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner under Or der 3 Rul e 2 of CPC has been r ej ect ed.

¶9

The br i ef f act s gi vi ng r i se t o t he pr esent pet i t i on ar e t hat a sui t was f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner f or decl ar at i on, i nj unct i on and cancel l at i on of sal e deed agai nst def endant s r espondent s No. 1 & 2 st at i ng t her ei n t hat t he l and of Khasr a No. 2736 measur i ng . 22 hect ar e,

¶10

si t uat ed at Sawar Road, Kekr i bel ongs t o pl ai nt i f f and out of whi ch 1/ 7 shar e sol d by def endant No. 1 i n f avour of def endant No. 2 t hr ough a r egi st er ed sal e deed may be decl ar ed i nval i d and voi d ab- i ni t i o.

¶11

Pet i t i oner bei ng an ol d l ady execut ed power of

¶12

¶13

at t or ney i n f avour of her son Shr i Om Dut t Vyas. Dur i ng t he pendency of t he sui t , pet i t i oner f i l ed an appl i cat i on under Or der 3 Rul e 2 CPC pr ayi ng t her ei n t hat Om Dut t Vyas who i s son of t he pet i t i oner may be gi ven per mi ssi on t o appear i n t he wi t ness box i n pl ace of pl ai nt i f f and t o adduce evi dence i n suppor t of t he pl ai nt . The t r i al cour t vi de i mpugned or der dat ed 29. 3. 2014 r ej ect ed t he appl i cat i on of t he pet i t i oner on t he gr ound t hat si nce Om Dut t Vyas i s al r eady a par t y t o t he pr oceedi ngs as def endant No. 3, hence he cannot l ead evi dence on behal f of t he pl ai nt i f f .

¶14

I t i s cont ended by l ear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner t hat t he pl ai nt i f f - pet i t i oner i s aged above 83 year s and bei ng an ol d aged l ady execut ed a power of at t or ney i n f avour of one

¶15

Shr i Om Dut t Vyas who happens t o be r eal son of t he pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f t o act and depose on her behal f . He f ur t her cont ends t hat i t was not i ncumbent f or t he pl ai nt i f f t o be per sonal l y pr esent t o depose i n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he case. He f ur t her cont ended t hat t he def endant No. 1 who happens t o be anot her son of pl ai nt i f f - pet i t i oner sol d t he i mmovabl e pr oper t y t o one Rakesh Joshi def endant No. 2 wi t hout knowl edge of not onl y t he pl ai nt i f f - pet i t i oner but def endant s No. 3

¶16

¶17

t o 9 and he act ed beyond t he t er ms of t he wi l l . He f ur t her cont ended t hat i n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he case t he or der passed by t he t r i al cour t i s not pr oper and t her ef or e deser ves t o be quashed and set asi de and t he power of at t or ney hol der may be per mi t t ed t o l ead evi dence on behal f of t he pl ai nt i f f pet i t i oner .

¶18

Per cont r a, l ear ned counsel f or t he

¶19

r espondent s cont ended t hat admi t t edl y, power of at t or ney was execut ed by t he pl ai nt i f f - pet i t i oner i n f avour of def endant No. 3 Shr i Om Dut t Vyas but Shr i Om Dut t Vyas i s one of t he def endant s i n t hi s ver y sui t i t sel f ,

¶20

t her ef or e, he cont ends t hat when def endant no. 3 i s hi msel f one of t he par t y t o t he sui t and i s an i nt er est ed par t y t her ef or e he cannot st ep i nt o t he shoes of t he pl ai nt i f f . He f ur t her dr ew t he at t ent i on of t he cour t on Or der 3 Rul e 2 of CPC whi ch r eads as under :

¶21

Recogni zed agent s. - The r ecogni zed agent s of par t i es by whom such appear ance, appl i cat i ons and act s may be made or done ar e

¶22

( a) per sons hol di ng power s of at t or ney, aut hor i zi ng t hem t o make and do such appear ances, appl i cat i ons and act s on behal f of such par t i es;

¶23

¶24

( b) per sons car r yi ng on t r ade or busi ness f or and i n t he names of par t i es not r esi dent ‘ wi t hi n t he l ocal l i mi t s of t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t he cour t wi t hi n whi ch l i mi t s t he appear ance, appl i cat i on or act i s made or done, i n mat t er s connect ed wi t h such t r ade or busi ness onl y, wher e no ot her agent i s expr essl y aut hor i zed t o make and do such appear ances, appl i cat i ons and act s

¶25

He f ur t her pl aced r el i ance on [ 1998] 3 CCC 183 Ram Pr asad Vs. Har i Nar ai n and ( 2013) 12 SCC 64 S. Kesar i Hanuman Goud Vs Anj um Jehan & Or s. and submi t t ed t hat t he or der passed by t he t r i al cour t was j ust and pr oper .

¶26

I have consi der ed t he r i val submi ssi ons advanced by l ear ned counsel f or t he par t i es and per used t he mat er i al avai l abl e on r ecor d. Thi s cour t i s of t he opi ni on t hat t he appl i cat i on of t he pet i t i oner moved under Or der 3 Rul e 2 of CPC was mi sconcei ved. I t cannot be l ai d down as a uni ver sal l aw t hat a par t y t o a sui t i n each and ever y case must ent er i nt o wi t ness box t o pr ove hi s case. A case may be pr oved by any ot her compet ent wi t ness havi ng knowl edge of f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he case i nvol ved i n t he case. But at t he same t i me a power of at t or ney hol der cannot be consi der ed as subst i t ut e of a par t y and hi s deposi t i on cannot assume char act er of t he par t y hi msel f . He may depose i n hi s per sonal capaci t y as and when occasi on

¶27

¶28

ar i ses. I f Shr i Om Dut t Vyas want ed t o appear as wi t ness f or t he pl ai nt i f f , he coul d appear i n hi s i ndi vi dual capaci t y and hi s deposi t i on woul d be appr eci at ed and eval uat ed not as pl ai nt i f f her sel f but as hi s i ndi vi dual deposi t i on. Thus appl i cat i on of t he pet i t i oner was mi sconcei ved.

¶29

I n such f act s and ci r cumst ances, i mpugned or der i s modi f i ed and i t i s her eby obser ved t hat Shr i Om Dut t Vyas may appear as wi t ness f or pl ai nt i f f but i t i s cl ar i f i ed t hat hi s evi dence shal l be appr eci at ed and eval uat ed i n hi s i ndi vi dual capaci t y and not as power of at t or ney hol der of t he pl ai nt i f f or hi s evi dence shal l not be deemed t o be of t he pl ai nt i f f her sel f and t he cour t shal l be f r ee t o eval uat e and appr eci at e t he evi dence i n accor dance wi t h l aw.

¶30

Wi t h t hese obser vat i ons, t he wr i t pet i t i on st ands di sposed of .

¶31

¶32

Cer t i f i cat e: Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng e- mai l ed. Om Pr akash PA

Smt Raksha Devi v. Shri Pashupati Nath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Raksha Devi v. Shri Pashupati Nath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Agarwal andANR Vs M/S Atal Estates Pvt. Ltd.

Mahendra Kumar Agarwal andANR Vs Naresh Kumar

Sadhuram Meena Vs Civil Judge J D and Ors.

Viom Network Ltd. Vs Chaitanya Pratap

Dinesh Chand Garg and Ors. Vs Addi Civil Judge and Ors.

M/S Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. Vs C T O Kota