1997 (8) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The case, therefore, was posted for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. (ii) The plaintiff, in the meanwhile, moved an application praying that his son Satya Narayan, being his general power-of-attorney holder, may be allowed to appear as witness on his behalf. The defendant contested the said application. The learned trial Court vide its order dated November 15, 1996 dismissed the said application. Hence this revision. 3. Before adverting to the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to relevant statutory provisions. 4. Rule 2 of Order 3 of Code of Civil Procedure provides thus :-- "Recognised agents-- The recognised agents of parties by whom such appearances....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itness in the list and only a passing remark was made in respect of examination of power of attorney holder or the party. Neither the provisions contained in Order 3, Rule 2 were discussed nor the word "acts" was interpreted. 8. On the other hand Mr. Kanta Prasad Sharma learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 2 WLN 713, where this Court (Hon'ble Dinker Lal Mehta, J. as he then was) in para No. 23 of the judgment propounded as under :-- "A general power-of-attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party, but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witne....