- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9422 WP No. 101981 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.101981 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. TEJASWINI D/O. RANGNATHRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: YAMANUR, TAL: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD, NOW AT E–504, AL-SAYYA RESIDENCE, ARJAN AL BARSHA SOUTH, DUBAI UAE. BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT. RESHMA W/O. RANGANATH KULKARNI, AGE: 71, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O: B2 – 1806, WADHWA, OPP R-CITY MALL, LBS MARGH, GHATKOPAR WEST, MUMBAI STATE: MAHARASHTRA – 400 086. …PETITIONER (BY MS. VAIBHAVI INAMDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. SHANTAPPA BHOOMA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: LAST BUS STOP, SIDDALING NAGAR, GADAG, TAL & DIST GADAG. 2. SHRI. ISHWARGOUDA S/O. TIPPANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST, R/O: OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST. DHRWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S.KORISHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 22.07.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER ON 08/07/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN O.S. NO. 112/2020 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DIV), HUBALLI, AS NULL AND VOID AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO. V AS PRAYER FOR AND ETC.,. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.08.01 14:55:18 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9422 WP No. 101981 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: I. To issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order on 08/07/2024 vide Annexure-F in O.S. No. 112/2020 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Huballi, as null and void and allow the Interim Application No. V as prayer for. II. To grant any other Writ/Relief deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble court. 2. The respondents had filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner. The petitioner, who was arrayed as Defendant No. 2 in the proceedings, filed an application under Order III Rule 4 read with Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the Court's permission to allow her General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder i.e. her mother to represent her and depose on her behalf during the trial. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubballi, by order dated 08.07.2024, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9422 WP No. 101981 of 2025 primarily on the ground that the affidavit filed in support of the application was silent as to the personal knowledge of the GPA holder regarding the transaction in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner resides abroad, and her mother has been looking after all her affairs in India, including the subject matter of the suit. It is further submitted that the trial court failed to consider this material aspect while adjudicating the application. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand, contends that only a person having independent and personal knowledge of the transaction can lead evidence in a suit for specific performance. It is his submission that since such personal knowledge is not pleaded or proved, the trial court rightly declined the application. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9422 WP No. 101981 of 2025 considered view that the trial court erred in rejecting the application at the threshold solely on the ground that the affidavit was silent regarding personal knowledge. Whether or not the GPA holder has the requisite personal knowledge is a matter that can only be tested during cross-examination. 6. It is well settled that a GPA holder can appear, depose, and be cross-examined, provided the holder has personal knowledge of the facts relevant to the suit. Such determination is to be made during trial and not pre-judged at the stage of considering the application under Order III Rule 4 of CPC. 7. In the present case, the petitioner’s mother has been managing the affairs of defendant no. 2 in India and is stated to be conversant with the facts of the transaction. The petitioner having appointed her mother as her GPA holder, this Court finds no legal impediment in permitting the GPA holder to appear and depose on behalf of the petitioner, subject to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9422 WP No. 101981 of 2025 cross-examination by the contesting parties. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 08.07.2024, passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubballi, in IA No. V, is hereby set aside. The petitioner is permitted to examine her mother, the GPA holder in the matter. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VB/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78