Hemlata Vishwambhar Gunale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

{1} WP 3698 OF 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 55 WRIT PETITION NO.3698 OF 2019 HEMLATA VISHWAMBHAR GUNALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Ameya N. Sabnis AGP for Respondent - State : Shri K.S.Patil ...

CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.

DATE: 18th March, 2019 PER COURT:- Heard Shri A.N.Sabnis, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The present petitioner is original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.241 of 2010, pending on the file of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur. The said suit is filed for perpetual injunction. The learned Counsel submits that the evidence from the side of the plaintiff is completed and the evidence from the side of defendants was to commence. The learned Counsel further submitted that on behalf of the defendants, the evidence afÏdavit came to be filed of one Shri Lingraj Chandrashekhar Patil, son of defendant No.3 in capacity of the power of attorney holder of the said defendant. The learned Counsel submitted that the said afÏdavit was objected to by the petitioner - plaintiff

{2} WP 3698 OF 2019 by filing the an application and it was requested that the said evidence afÏdavit of Shri Lingraj Chandrashekhar Patil be rejected. The learned Counsel submitted that the said application has been wrongly rejected by the Court below and hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. Relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha [(2010) 10 SCC 512], the learned Counsel sought to contend that it was not permissible in the case in hand to allow the power of attorney holder of defendant No.3 to file his evidence afÏdavit. The learned Counsel submitted that the Trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner - plaintiff. I have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

It does not appear to me that the Trial Court has committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. It appears that it is the anxiety of the petitioner that if she does not take any objection for filing of the evidence afÏdavit of power of attorney holder, perhaps her further objection may not be considered by the Court as about the evidence, which may come on record. Apprehension in the mind of the petitioner is misplaced.

{3} WP 3698 OF 2019 (Dead) By Lrs. (supra) has laid down guidelines; in what circumstances evidence of the power of attorney holder be considered and under which circumstances, such evidence may not be of any use for the party concerned. It no where lays down straight jacket formula that in every case at very initial stage, without going into the merits of the matter, the evidence afÏdavit be rejected of power of attorney holder. In the circumstances, it does not appear to me that any error has been committed by the Trial Court. It would be open for the petitioner - plaintiff to lead the evidence of her witness in rebuttal. With the observations as above, the petition stands dismissed. (P.R.BORA) JUDGE SPT