Rajiv Lochan Gautam & ANR v. Ravi Kant & ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Rajiv Lochan Gautam and Another
...Petitioners
Versus
Ravi Kant and another .... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
Present:
Ms. Harkirat Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
****
, J. (Oral)
!
"
# "
!$
%
&"
'& () *+
&
' ,
-.!)
%
%
"1
+
4 * $$ $ 5
#
*.+ "
/
% "
0 /
#
# 0 "
%
% Upon notice, the present petitioners appeared and contested the suit by filing their written statement. Thereafter, issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs. Further, in
terms of interim order dated 29.01.2026, PW-3 Sohan Lal, being the Special Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.1-Ravi Kant, appeared before the Court and was duly and completely cross-examined. 7
#
%
*.+
,# .. /
.
,#
#
"1
+ 3 Notice of the said application was issued to the respondents/plaintiffs, who contested the same by filing their reply. Upon hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar, dismissed the application filed by the present petitioners seeking rejection/discarding of the affidavit of PW-5 Ravi Kant (respondent No.1 herein).
$ Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that once respondent No.1-Ravi Kant had appointed his Special Power of Attorney holder, namely PW-3 Sohan Lal, who was duly cross-examined on 29.01.2026, respondent No.1 could not thereafter tender his own affidavit as PW-5, inasmuch as he had already examined his attorney, Sohan Lal, as PW-3. Rather, respondent No.1-Ravi Kant was present in Court on 29.01.2026 and was observing the proceedings. After the crossexamination of PW-3 Sohan Lal had concluded, respondent No.1 sought to tender his affidavit in an attempt to fill up the lacuna in his case, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. It is, thus, respectfully submitted that the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 deserves to be set aside, and the affidavit so tendered by respondent No.1-Ravi Kant be rejected/discarded, as he
has already examined his Special Power of Attorney holder, namely PW-3 Sohan Lal.
8 /
!
"
#
#
*9+
,
-/
-2.$ 4 : / %
,# 7
#
%
*9+ #
Though much hue and cry has been raised before this Court that once PW-3 Sohan Lal, being the Special Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.1, had been examined, the affidavit of PW-5 Ravi Kant ought not to have been taken on record, however, this Court is of the considered view that there is no statutory provision which bars a party from tendering his own affidavit merely on the ground that his Power of Attorney holder has already deposed on his behalf. It is well settled that a Power of Attorney holder can depose only to the extent of acts performed by him or facts within his personal knowledge. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered view that a party to the proceedings is always a competent witness in his own cause. It is also pertinent to note that nothing was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court to demonstrate that by filing his affidavit, respondent No.1-Ravi Kant intended to fill up any lacuna after the examination of his Special Power of Attorney holder, namely PW-3 Sohan Lal.
"
#
"
/
-/
%
; %
" % #
8"
1
*1-2.!9+ 3
"%
%
# "
!$
%
&"
'& () *+
&
/
%
"%
#
- "
%
'<+ *(=+ *>?
>+=2:)
&@(>= Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No