- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11972 WP No. 100879 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 100879 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAVITA KOM. SUDHEERA EGAPPANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BACHANAGI, TALUK: MUNDAGOD, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA-581344. 2. MAHAVEERA S/O. SHIVAPPA YOGEPPANAVAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BACHANAGI, TALUK: MUNDAGOD, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA-581344. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GUTHYAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BACHANAGI, TALUK: MUNDAGOD, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA-581344. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11972 WP No. 100879 of 2022 2. MALLAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA SAAGARA, AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BACHANAGI, TALUK: MUNDAGOD, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA-581344. 3. SAHADEV S/O. SANNA HANUMANTHAPPA VADDAR, AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BACHANAGI, TALUK: MUNDAGOD, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA-581344. 4. MAHABOOBSAB S/O. MOHAMMAD SAB MULLANAVAR, AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BACHANAGI, TALUK: MUNDAGOD, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA-581344. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.02.2021 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD IN O.S.NO.23/2021 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C ANE ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11972 WP No. 100879 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following relief: a. To issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mundgod in O.S.No.23/2021 which is produced at Annexure-E and consequently allow the application which is produced at Annexure-C. b. Issue such other writ or order as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Sri Mallikarjunswami B. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners application filed seeking to appoint applicant as a G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the application does not disclose the reasons. It is submitted that the suit is filed by Smt.Kavita, who is a widow and she was appointed her husband’s brother as an agent because of personal difficulties. It is submitted that suit is for permanent injunction on the premise that the defendants have illegally formed the road in the property of the petitioners and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11972 WP No. 100879 of 2022 the said fact is also within the knowledge of the agent. It is submitted that the no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the application is allowed. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri Praveen P.Tarikar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order of the trial court and submits that the reason in the application for appointment of an agent is not forthcoming and he cannot speak the personal knowledge of the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material record. 5. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.23/2021 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mundgod. The said suit is for relief of permanent injunction against the respondents. The said suit was filed by Smt.Kavita, wife of deceased Sudheer Egappanavar. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11972 WP No. 100879 of 2022 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking prayer to appoint petitioner No. 2 as an agent/GPA holder to represent the plaintiff in the suit, which came to be rejected by the trial Court solely on the ground that no reasons are assigned in the application for appointment of an agent. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in coming to such conclusion. Order III Rule 2 of CPC does not require that the reasons are to be assigned in the application. 6. Taking note of the same the impugned order is required to be set aside. It is trite law that if the agent speaks more than his knowledge or the personal knowledge of the plaintiff, it is always open for the defendant to raise such objections in the pending suit. With the aforesaid observations, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application filed under Order III Rule 2 of CPC for appointment of agent/GPA holder to represent the suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11972 WP No. 100879 of 2022 ii. The impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed on IA filed by the plaintiff in OS.No.23/2021 is set aside. iii. Consequently, IA filed by the plaintiff under Order III Rule 2 of CPC is allowed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK, ABK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6