Power of attorney and cross-examination limits: a party cannot force personal deposition, and cross-examination starts only after chief-examination.

A defendant cannot compel a plaintiff to depose personally merely because the plaintiff is represented through a power of attorney; the conduct of the evidence is for the plaintiff to choose, subject to law, and the court should not direct how a party presents its case. Cross-examination is maintainable only after chief-examination has been recorded, so a request to cross-examine before the plaintiff enters the witness box is misconceived. On these principles, the challenge to the trial court's refusal to grant such directions failed and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a defendant can seek a direction compelling the plaintiff to depose in person despite the plaintiff having chosen to act through a power of attorney; (ii) Whether a prayer for cross-examination of the plaintiff is maintainable before the plaintiff has been examined in chief.

Issue (i): Whether a defendant can seek a direction compelling the plaintiff to depose in person despite the plaintiff having chosen to act through a power of attorney.

Analysis: The law on powers of attorney permits the authorised holder to act only within the scope of the authority conferred and does not treat such authorisation as a substitute for deposition on matters within the principal's personal knowledge. That principle, however, does not authorise an opposite party to compel the principal to appear and give evidence in a particular manner. The conduct of the plaintiff's case is for the plaintiff to decide, subject to law, and the court is not to direct a party how to present its case or what form of evidence to adduce.

Conclusion: The request to compel the plaintiff to depose personally was untenable and was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a prayer for cross-examination of the plaintiff is maintainable before the plaintiff has been examined in chief.

Analysis: Cross-examination follows chief-examination and arises only after a witness tenders evidence in chief. In the absence of chief-examination, there is no occasion for cross-examination under the Evidence Act. A request to cross-examine a person who has not yet entered the witness box for chief-examination is therefore misconceived.

Conclusion: The prayer for cross-examination before chief-examination was not maintainable and the trial court's rejection of the application was correct.

Final Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the trial court's order, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot compel an adversary to depose in a particular manner, and cross-examination is legally possible only after chief-examination has been recorded.

---