Published on: October 27, 2023 at 17:50 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani V. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2005)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empower the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. It is held that the word “acts” employed in Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC confines only to in respect of “acts” done by the power-of-attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term “acts” would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. It is held that Power-of-Attorney holder cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him.
12. In the context of the directions given by this Court, shifting the burden of proving on to the appellants that they have a share in the property, it was obligatory on the appellants to have entered the box and discharged the burden by themselves. The question whether the appellants have any independent source of income and have contributed towards the purchase of the property from their own independent income can be only answered by the appellants themselves and not by a mere holder of power of attorney from them. The power-of-attorney holder does not have personal knowledge of the matter of the appellants and therefore he can neither depose on his personal knowledge nor can he be cross-examined on those facts which are to the personal knowledge of the principal.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra