- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42139 WP No. 30660 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 30660 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. HARISHCHANDRA, S/O LATE BATYAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KADEKAN HOUSE, BARIMAR VILLAGE, MANI POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 253. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BHAGAVATHI DEVARU, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, K. PRASANNA KAMATH, S/O LATE K. BHAVANIRAYA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/ AT KADEKAN HOUSE, BARIMAR VILLAGE, MANI POST, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 201. 2. SMT. YOGINI, W/O LATE ANANDA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42139 WP No. 30660 of 2025 3. SHARATH, S/O LATE ANANDA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 4. KEERTHAN, S/O LATE ANANDA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, REP. BY HIS MOTHER, SMT. YOGINI 5. YOGENDRA POOJARY, S/O LATE BATYAPPA POOJARY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S RAJESHWARI, W/O LATE YOGENDRA POOJARY, MAJOR. 6. SHISHIRA S/O LATE YOGENDRA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, REP. HIS MOTHER RAJESHWARI 7. DHANANJAY, S/O LATE BATYAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 8. NARAYAN, S/O LATE BATYAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 9. SURESH S/O LATE BATYAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 10. PARAMESHWARA, S/O LATE BATYAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42139 WP No. 30660 of 2025 11. SMT. RUKMINI BAI, W/O LATE SRI PRABHAKARA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT MARIL HOUSE, "PRABHU COMPOUND", KEMMINJE VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K DISTRICT- 575 004. RESPONDENT Nos.3 TO 11 ARE R/AT BALYA HOUSE, BARIMARU VILLAGE, KAGEKANA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 253 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A. No.XI IN O.S.No.355/2014 AND O.S.No.356/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL D.K., VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42139 WP No. 30660 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri S. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri A. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 2. Defendant No.2 in O.S. No.356/2014 has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 11.09.2025 passed on I.A. No.XI filed under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 1. 3. Respondent No.1 instituted the suit represented by its Adalithadar, Sri K. Prasanna Kamath. When the suit was set down for recording of evidence, the plaintiff appointed a General Power of Attorney holder (GPA). The application in that regard was supported by the affidavit of the GPA holder himself. It appears that the petitioner objected to the GPA holder filing the affidavit in support of the application. Thereafter, the affidavit of the plaintiff came to be filed. The 1 CPC - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42139 WP No. 30660 of 2025 Trial Court, upon consideration of the application, allowed the same by the impugned order 4. Sri S. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that Sri K. Prasanna Kamath is representing the plaintiff–deity, and further delegation of authority through a General Power of Attorney is impermissible. It is contended that the Trial Court, without considering this aspect, has committed an error in allowing the application. 5. Per contra, Sri A. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.1, submits that the person representing the plaintiff is entitled to appoint any other person to prosecute the suit, and such appointment is permissible under Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, he submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the primary contention of the petitioner is that the person representing the plaintiff cannot further delegate authority to a General Power of Attorney holder. The said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42139 WP No. 30660 of 2025 contention need not be examined at this stage in view of the observations made by the Trial Court while allowing the application. As observed by the Trial Court, the GPA holder is permitted to appear in his own capacity, and the question regarding his competence to depose in respect of the acts done by the principal has been kept open as being premature. In view of the specific observation that the GPA holder has been accorded permission to proceed with the case only to the extent of giving evidence in respect of acts done by him in exercise of the powers granted under the instrument, the objection raised by the petitioner is premature. The limited permission granted by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 7. This petition, therefore, merits no further consideration and stands dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15