- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8258 WP No. 4881 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4881 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. B N PUSHPA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O S.LAKSHMANA KHUMARAA D/O B.V.NARAYANASWAMY R/AT VAPASANDRA-1 DIVISION OPP A C COMPOUND, CHIKKABALLAPURA PRESENTLY R/AT NO.584/1 9TH MAIN, 3RD A CROSS, BHCS LAYOUT CHIKKALASANDRA BANGALORE-560061 REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI. LAKSHMAN KUMARA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESHA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MALLESH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE.LINGAPPA R/AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS KODIPALYA, ESHWARNAGAR KONANKUNTE POST BANGALORE – 560062. 2. SRI.L.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LAKSHMINARAYANACHARI R/AT NO.2, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD YELACHENAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560078. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8258 WP No. 4881 of 2025 3. SRI.J.K.ANANDH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O KRISHNAPPA R/AT NO.264,3RD MAIN KRISHNAPPA COMPOUND JARAGANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560078. 4. SRI.M.GURURAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE. MAYIGAPPA R/AT NO.378, 8TH CROSS INDUSTRIAL TOWN RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560044. 5. SRI.T.D.JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O T.D. DORAIRAJAN R/AT NO.K-1, TYPE –III CPWD QUARTERS, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN 26449/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL SESSION JUDGE, MAYO HALL AT BANGALORE (CCH 74) AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED ON IA NO. 15 DATED:05.02.2023 IN OS NO. 26449/2010 BY THE LEARNED LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL SESSION JUDGE, MAYO HALL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8258 WP No. 4881 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.2 challenging the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the LXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.15 filed by defendant No.2 under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.26449/2010, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the said application with cost. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs are represented by GPA holder, Mr.K.Shivaram. When the matter was posted for evidence, the plaintiffs have filed the application seeking to produce the new GPA dated 27.07.2023 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Mr.K.Shivaram. Therefore, the defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.15 under Order 26 Rule 10A of CPC seeking to appoint Court Commissioner/Scientific Investigator to compare the signatures of the plaintiffs on Ex.P18, sale deed with that of Ex.P-28, GPA dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8258 WP No. 4881 of 2025 27.07.2023 on the ground that plaintiffs have not executed GPA in favour of Mr.K.Shivaram. The Trial Court, by impugned order has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.2 has contended that GPA holder has filed the copy of the original GPA dated 17.07.2010 along with the plaint. The same was part of the records of the Trial Court. At the time of adducing evidence, since the original GPA dated 17.07.2010 was misplaced, the plaintiffs wanted to mark the new GPA dated 27.07.2023 and accordingly, filed an application to produce the new GPA dated 27.07.2023. In the meantime, the original GPA dated 17.07.2010 was traced and sought to produce the same. 4. The plaintiffs have filed an affidavit before this Court stating that they have executed the GPA in favour of Mr.K.Shivaram to prosecute the suit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8258 WP No. 4881 of 2025 5. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiffs have not executed the GPA in favour of Mr.K.Shivaram cannot be considered. 6. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by petitioner-defendant No.2. Viewed from any angle, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. No good grounds are made out to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6