- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9273 WP No. 5215 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5215 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. K.L. JYOTHI W/O D J SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT DODDBEMMATHI VILLAGE MALLIPATTANA HOBLI ARAKALAGUDU TALUK HASSAN 573102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRITHVIRAJ SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SANCHAN JAI NANDAN., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI VENKATESHACHARI S/O LATE KALACHARI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE BELLURU HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N K RAMESH., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL - M.A. NO.8/23 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9273 WP No. 5215 of 2024 JUDGE AND JMFC AT ARKALGUD PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalagud in MA No.8/2022, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order III Rule 2 of CPC was rejected. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, she has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. The trial court allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal before the I Appellate Court in MA No.8/2023. In the said appeal, the plaintiff filed an application to represent through her execute General Power of Attorney executed in favour of her husband – Shivalingegowda to represent the case on the ground that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9273 WP No. 5215 of 2024 she is unwell. Since there is no document produced to prove that she was unwell, the trial court rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant contended that the statement made in the application that the original plaintiff is unwell to represent the case is not based upon any medical records. He contended that the plaintiff has tampered the injunction order granted by the trial court. In the schedule, instead of 1 acre, it has been modified as 6 acres. To cover up the allegation she wants to be represented by a General Power of Attorney. 4. Be that as it may. Under Order III Rule 2 of CPC, the parties can be represented by a General Power of Attorney. Even if she is represented by a General Power of Attorney, all the allegations or complaint made against the original plaintiff holds good, subject to disproving. Therefore, the trial court has erred in rejecting the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9273 WP No. 5215 of 2024 application on the ground that no document has been produced to show that she was unwell. 5. In view of the above, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 06.02.2024 passed on IA No.II in M.A.No.8/2023 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalagud is set aside. (iii) IA No.2 filed by the defendant under Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC is allowed. (iv) All contentions of the parties are left open. (v) In view of disposal of the main petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 1