A power-of-attorney holder cannot depose on matters within the principal’s personal knowledge.

The petitioner filed O.S. No. 70 of 2020 seeking specific performance of a sale agreement. After the petitioner led evidence and the matter was posted for the defendant’s evidence, the respondent sought permission under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC to testify through his power-of-attorney holder, citing his age and physical weakness. The petitioner objected that the attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of the transaction. The trial court allowed the application, prompting this writ petition.

During the hearing, the respondent’s counsel conceded that the written statement did not plead that the attorney holder was present at the alleged transaction.

1. Whether a power-of-attorney holder may depose on behalf of a principal about a transaction of which the holder has no personal knowledge.

2. Whether the trial court’s order permitting the power-of-attorney holder to lead evidence was contrary to the governing principles in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani.

Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC permit a power-of-attorney holder to perform acts authorised by the instrument, but the term “acts” does not extend to deposing in place of the principal about acts done by the principal or matters within the principal’s personal knowledge. An attorney holder may testify about acts personally performed by the holder under the power of attorney.

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and others, Appeal (Civil) No. 6790 of 2003, decided 6 December 2004, for these principles.

The respondent’s application invoked Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

The respondent asserted that the attorney holder had personal knowledge of, and was present at, the transaction. However, the written statement did not plead the attorney holder’s presence, and counsel conceded that omission.

The Court therefore found that the attorney holder had no personal knowledge of the transaction between the parties. Because the disputed transaction was within the respondent’s personal knowledge, the respondent could not delegate testimony about it to the attorney holder. The trial court’s permission was consequently inconsistent with the rule in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani.

It allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court’s order dated 11 October 2023, and dismissed I.A. No. 6 in O.S. No. 70 of 2020.