- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44605 WP No. 32464 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32464 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. RAGHAVENDRA K S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA HEBBAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.3, GOVER ROAD COX TOWN, BENGALURU- 560 005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.D.RAGHUNATH., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. R. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE D.V. RAMACHANDRA AND SMT. R. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.141, M.M.ROAD FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU- 560 005 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 76) IN OS NO. 8313/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-G DATED 08.10.2025., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44605 WP No. 32464 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondent/defendant before the trial Court for the reason that this Court is not inclined to accept this petition and no adverse orders are passed against the respondent/defendant. 3. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.8313/2022. A suit came to be filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant. After the recording of evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff and at the stage of recording the evidence of respondent/defendant, pursuant to the examination-in- chief of defendant-DW1, a memo came to be filed by respondent/defendant dated 25.06.2025. The memo reads as under. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44605 WP No. 32464 of 2025 "Even though the defendant has filed in O.S.No.7445/2024, memo dated 24.05.2025 to this Hon'ble Court stating that he will have to leave for USA seeking cooperation from the plaintiff to complete cross examination before leaving for USA, but intentionally they have not cross examined the witness and except made him to wait in the Court and since the defendant has gone to USA now it is necessary for him lead additional evidence through his GPA holder as DW.2 and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit him to do so." 4. Vide this memo, the respondent/defendant has sought leave of the court to examine his power of attorney holder as DW2 in view of the fact that he is traveling to the United States of America and he was intentionally not cross examined by the petitioner/plaintiff apart from making him wait in the Court and since now the defendant/respondent has traveled to the USA, he wants to examine his power of attorney holder as DW2. 5. This memo is allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 08.10.2025. The short point for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44605 WP No. 32464 of 2025 consideration before this Court is whether the memo filed by the respondent/defendant is rightly allowed by the trial Court for permission to the defendant to examine his power of attorney holder Sri.N.Gopalakrishnan as DW2. 6. In the memo, very clearly, the respondent/defendant has stated that he has to leave for USA and hence sought cooperation from the petitioner/plaintiff to complete the cross-examination before leaving for the USA. But intentionally the plaintiff has not cross-examined the witness except to make him wait in the Court and since the respondent/defendant had to leave for USA, he is now seeking leave of the court to examine his power of attorney holder as DW2. There is no prohibition in law to permit the examination of DW2, the power of attorney holder of respondent/defendant, as one of his witnesses. It is for the petitioner/plaintiff to cross examine the witness if such evidence is adduced. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that the trial Court ought to have discharged the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44605 WP No. 32464 of 2025 witness-DW1 prior to passing this order on the memo for allowing the witness- DW2 to be examined as a power of Attorney holder. Without passing such an order, the trial Court has proceeded to allow the memo and permitted the defendant to examine his witness as power of attorney holder as DW2. 8. The proceedings of the trial Court are not placed before this Court to show at what stage the matter is before the trial Court as to whether the trial Court has discharged DW1 or stated that he is not present for further cross examination by the petitioner/plaintiff. If no such thing has happened, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner/plaintiff to approach the Court for necessary relief to either summon the respondent/defendant, to cross-examine him either physically or through video conference or through his power of attorney holder. However, the respondent/defendant cannot be restrained from examining his power of attorney holder as an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44605 WP No. 32464 of 2025 additional witness as DW2, as per the procedure contemplated in law. 9. Therefore, I do not find any legal impediment in the trial Court, allowing the application, which is rightly done. It is needless to mention that the trial Court shall follow the procedural law in recording of evidence of the witness. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is dismissed. 2. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7