The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that a party to a civil suit may tender their own affidavit as a witness even after examining their Power of Attorney holder, rejecting the argument that such conduct creates a legal infirmity. This ruling reinforces the principle that a party is always a competent witness in their own cause, irrespective of prior testimony by an agent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a civil suit for possession, declaration of joint ownership, recovery of mesne profits, and permanent injunction concerning a property in Jalandhar. The plaintiffs, Ravi Kant and another, filed Civil Suit No. 4233 of 2023 against the petitioners, Rajiv Lochan Gautam and another. The petitioners contested the suit by filing a written statement. Issues were framed, and the matter proceeded to evidence.
Key Facts
- The plaintiffs appointed Sohan Lal as their Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder to represent them in the suit
- Sohan Lal appeared as PW-3 and was duly examined-in-chief and fully cross-examined on 29.01.2026
- On the same date, 29.01.2026, Ravi Kant, the principal plaintiff and first respondent, appeared in court and tendered his affidavit as PW-5
- The petitioners filed an application seeking rejection of Ravi Kant’s affidavit, arguing that since his SPA holder had already testified, the principal could not subsequently depose
- The trial court dismissed the application on 05.03.2026, holding no legal bar existed
- The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
Procedural History
- 2023: Civil Suit No. 4233 of 2023 filed by Ravi Kant and another against Rajiv Lochan Gautam and another
- 29.01.2026: PW-3 Sohan Lal (SPA holder) examined-in-chief and cross-examined
- 29.01.2026: Ravi Kant appeared as PW-5 and tendered affidavit
- 05.03.2026: Civil Judge (Junior Division), NRI Court, Jalandhar dismissed petitioners’ application to reject PW-5’s affidavit
- 08.04.2026: High Court dismissed revision petition under Article 227
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 05.03.2026 and direction to discard the affidavit of PW-5 Ravi Kant, arguing it was an attempt to fill lacunae in the plaintiffs’ case.
The Legal Issue
Can a party to a civil suit tender their own affidavit as a witness after having already examined their Special Power of Attorney holder as a witness, and does such conduct violate any statutory or procedural rule?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that once the Special Power of Attorney holder, Sohan Lal, had been examined and cross-examined as PW-3, the principal, Ravi Kant, could not subsequently appear as PW-5. The submission was that this was a deliberate tactic to supplement the evidence after the SPA holder’s testimony had exposed weaknesses in the plaintiffs’ case. It was contended that such a practice undermines the integrity of evidence and amounts to abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that there is no statutory prohibition under the Evidence Act or the Code of Civil Procedure against a party appearing as a witness after their agent has testified. They emphasized that the Power of Attorney holder can depose only on acts performed by him or facts within his personal knowledge, and cannot substitute for the principal’s own testimony on matters of ownership, possession, or personal knowledge.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the legal position regarding the competency of a party to testify and the scope of a Power of Attorney holder’s deposition. It noted that while a Power of Attorney holder may depose on acts performed under the authority of the power, their testimony is inherently limited to matters within their personal knowledge or execution. The principal, however, remains a competent witness to testify on matters of ownership, possession, and personal dealings with the property.
"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."
The Court further held that no provision in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prohibits a party from appearing as a witness merely because their agent has already testified. The Court emphasized that Section 118 of the Evidence Act explicitly recognizes every person as a competent witness unless disqualified, and a party to the suit is expressly included within this category.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that the affidavit was filed to fill a lacuna, noting that no evidence was adduced before the trial court to substantiate such an allegation. The Court observed that the mere fact that the principal appeared after the agent does not, by itself, indicate impropriety or procedural abuse.
"This Court is of the considered view that a party to the proceedings is always a competent witness in his own cause."
The Court concluded that the trial court’s decision to admit the affidavit was legally sound and that the revision petition failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dated 05.03.2026 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), NRI Court, Jalandhar, which admitted the affidavit of PW-5 Ravi Kant. The Court held that no statutory bar prevents a party from tendering their own affidavit as evidence even after their Power of Attorney holder has testified. The petitioners’ request to discard the affidavit was rejected.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Party Testimony Is Not Precluded by Agent’s Deposition
- Practitioners must now accept that a plaintiff or defendant may testify personally even after their Power of Attorney holder has deposed
- The mere sequence of testimony does not render evidence inadmissible or suspect
- Arguments based on "filling lacunae" require concrete evidence of intent, not mere timing
SPA Holder’s Testimony Has Limited Scope
- A Power of Attorney holder can only testify about acts performed under the power or facts within their personal knowledge
- Matters of ownership, possession, or personal transactions must be proven by the principal
- Counsel should prepare principals to testify on core factual issues, not rely solely on agents
Procedural Fairness Trumps Technical Objections
- Courts will not strike down evidence on speculative grounds of procedural manipulation
- Objections to witness sequencing must be supported by specific allegations and proof
- The burden lies on the objecting party to demonstrate prejudice or bad faith
