- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42984 WP No. 13761 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 13761 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: S.G. SURESH BABU S/O LATE S.T. GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.316, ANJANAKRUPA 4TH CROSS, NEAR ANNAPURNESHWARI TEMPLE, R H C S LAYOUT ANNAPURANESHWARINAGAR VISWANEEDAM BENGALURU - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BAYYA REDDY N, ADV.) AND: SMT. M.N. LEELAVATHI W/O N. VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/A NO.20, 4TH CROSS AKSHAYANAGAR, IST BLOCK T.C. PALYA MAIN ROAD RAMAMURTHYNAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560 016. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 21.02.2024 PASSED IN O.S. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42984 WP No. 13761 of 2024 NO.9199/2022 ON THE FILE OF HON.BLE XXII ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE,(CCH-7), BENGALURU CITY PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THE HON.039.BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The defendant is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 21.02.2024 passed on IA no.6 in O.S.No.7199/2022 by the Court of XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. O.S.No.7199/2022 is filed by the respondent herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and also for damages. In the said suit, respondent- plaintiff has filed IA no.6 under Order III Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking permission of the Court to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42984 WP No. 13761 of 2024 prosecute the suit through her Special Power of Attorney holder. The said application was opposed by the defendant by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has allowed the application and has permitted the respondent herein to prosecute the suit through her Special Power of Attorney holder. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits, that the plaintiff is a signatory to the General Power of Attorney dated 06.05.1998 executed in favour of one Chandrashekar S/o Chikkanna by his vendors who have left a Will in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant intends to cross-examine the plaintiff regarding the signature found in the said GPA dated 06.05.1988. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to prosecute the suit through her Special Power of Attorney holder. 5. The plaintiff, who is a lady aged 68 years, has filed the application under Order III Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission of the Trial Court to prosecute the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42984 WP No. 13761 of 2024 through her Special Power of Attorney holder, on medical grounds. The Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter, and also having regard to the law laid down in the case of SAJIDA BANU VS HALEMA BANU & OTHERS - ILR 2015 KAR 635, wherein this Court has observed that in normal circumstances, the party should be permitted to be represented by a Power of Attorney Holder or a Counsel as a matter of right, and once Power of Attorney enters the witness box and gives evidence, whether that evidence has to be acted upon, whether it is direct evidence or hearsay evidence, is to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of appreciation of evidence, and on the ground that the power of attorney holder has no personal knowledge of the case, he cannot be prevented from entering the witness box and from deposing. The Trial Court has, therefore, overruled the objection raised by the defendant and has rightly allowed the application. 6. The Special Power of Attorney holder who is now permitted to prosecute the suit on the behalf of the plaintiff, is none other than the husband of the plaintiff, and therefore, it cannot be said that he has no personal knowledge of the case. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42984 WP No. 13761 of 2024 Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK