Civil Revision No.6510 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6510 of 2007 Date of decision:25.03.2009. Sardool Singh ...Petitioner Versus Harphool Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.S.Tinna, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present petition against the impugned order dated 20.10.2007 vide which the learned Trial Court allowed the reception of a written statement by defendant No.4. It is apparent from the impugned order that there was already a written statement, on behalf of that defendant, on record. She raised a plea that she did not engage the indicated advocate as a counsel, that she did not execute any power of attorney in his favour, that she did not put her thumb impression on the power of attorney which had been presented by the indicated counsel in the Court and that she had not filed the written statement (which had been presented in the Court by the counsel aforementioned on her behalf). The Advocate under reference made a statement that the power of attorney in his favour bears the thumb impression of defendant No.4 who had put her thumb impression on the power of attorney which she had executed in his favour. After noticing the contrary stances of the learned counsel aforementioned and defendant No.4, the learned Trial Court allowed the latter (defendant No.4) to file the written statement. It was, however, Civil Revision No.6510 of 2007 2 ordered that the effect, if any, of the filing of a written statement by Harphool Kaur “will be taken into consideration only after appreciating the evidence by the parties.” It is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court did not, at all, go into the question of truthfulness or otherwise of the statement made by either the indicated counsel or defendant No.4. In such a situation, it would have been appropriate for the learned Trial Court to first undertake an exercise of finding out the truthfulness or otherwise of either stance. It is thereafter only that orders, appropriate in character, could have followed. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to proceed to determine, in the first instance, the correctness or otherwise of the contrary stances aforementioned and, then, to decide the controversy about the valid reception of another written statement by defendant No.4. Disposed of accordingly. March 25, 2009 (S.D.Anand) vinod Judge