9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner had filed in a pending suit praying for issue of directions by the court to the first respondent-plaintiff to either come and give evidence in person or allow the petitioner-applicant to cross-examine the plaintiff. 2. Such an application having been rejected in terms of the impugned order, the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner is the second defendant in original suit No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner is that it is not open for the first respondent-plaintiff to lead evidence for her or to give evidence through a power of attorney; that such course of action has been held to be not possible in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Janki Varhodeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 729 and therefore submits that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of attorney in respect of matters which are within the knowledge of the person authorising i.e., events within the personal knowledge of the person issuing the authorisation. 8. While the law as declared by the Supreme Court is undoubtedly binding on all courts, the contention urged is not precisely one that stems out of the legal position indicated. The decision of the Supreme Court indicates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive and on the basis of what is placed before the court Even with regard to the prayer for permitting the applicant to cross-examine the plaintiff, the prayer is misconceived as the question of cross-examination arises only when a witness has tendered evidence in chief-examination. Under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, cross-examination follows chief-examination, but not without chief-ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
