Power of attorney evidence in civil suits upheld; personal testimony cannot be compelled without justified reasons.

A power of attorney holder may depose for the principal in civil proceedings, because Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure permits recognised agents to act and testimonial competency is governed by Section 118 of the Evidence Act, not by the procedural rules on pleading or argument. The court also held that personal appearance by the plaintiff is not mandatory in every case under Order XVIII; a direction to step into the witness box requires recorded reasons and case-specific justification. On that basis, the impugned order was quashed, the suit was restored to proceed from the stage where evidence had been interrupted, and the contrary findings were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a holder of power of attorney can depose on behalf of the principal in civil proceedings. (ii) Whether the court can direct the plaintiff to personally step into the witness box to prove the case as a matter of course.

Issue (i): Whether a holder of power of attorney can depose on behalf of the principal in civil proceedings.

Analysis: Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure permits recognised agents holding powers of attorney to act for parties in court matters. The provisions relied upon by the trial court were directed against pleading and arguing on behalf of a party, which is a function reserved to advocates, and did not determine the distinct question of testimonial competency. The competency of a witness is governed by Section 118 of the Evidence Act, while credibility is tested under Section 60. Read harmoniously with Order XVIII, there is no restriction in the procedural scheme that disables a power of attorney holder from deposing for the principal, subject to evaluation of the testimony.

Conclusion: The power of attorney holder is competent to depose on behalf of the principal, and the contrary finding was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the court can direct the plaintiff to personally step into the witness box to prove the case as a matter of course.

Analysis: Order XVIII does not make personal appearance by the party mandatory in every case. A party may choose whether to testify personally, and the court may draw appropriate inferences from non-appearance, but a direction to enter the witness box cannot be issued routinely without justification. Such a direction must rest on recorded reasons and be supported by the circumstances of the case. Since the impugned order disclosed no independent justification apart from the erroneous view on power of attorney evidence, the direction could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The direction requiring the plaintiff to step into the witness box was illegal and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned order was quashed, and the suit was directed to proceed from the stage at which the evidence had been interrupted.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of attorney holder may depose on behalf of a principal in civil proceedings, and procedural provisions governing appearance and pleading cannot be used to bar such testimony or to compel personal examination of the party absent a justified reason.

---