- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10667 WP No. 3264 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: L MANGALA RAM SON OF LATE SRI LALLA RAM CHOWDARY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, BYRAKUR HOBALI, MULABAGIL TALLUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT NANDA VAGMADE WIFE OF LATE HARIDAS BAYAJI BAGMADE, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT AT NO. 224/225, SEPPING ROAD, BHARATH NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 091. 2. SUVIDHA KRISHNA GALANDE, WIFE OF KRISHNA GALANDE, DAUGHTER OF LATE HARIDAS BAYAJI BAGMADE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MADNVEST GHAR, NO.291, PULIKOTE SATARA, MAHARASHTRA-415 509 ARE ALLOWED TO BE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, K. JASSARAM SON OF LATE KHIYARAMJI RINWA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10667 WP No. 3264 of 2026 RESIDING AT NO.179/4, OPH ROAD, CANTONMENT, BENGALURU-560 051. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHANA.G, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14-01-2026, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT MULABAGIL ON I.A.. NO.15 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER-2 RULE -3-A R/W S-151 OF CPC IN EX. NO.141/2010, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following relief:- “ To issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated: 14.01.2026, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., at Mulbagil on I.A. No.15 filed by the Respondent Under Order -2 Rule 3- A R/w S-151 of CPC in Ex.No.141/2010, produced at ANNEXURE-A’ and to pass such other order or direction under the facts and circumstances in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10667 WP No. 3264 of 2026 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents, who are Decree Holders No.1(a) and 1(b) filed an application I.A.No.15 seeking permission to prosecute the proceedings through their GPA Holder Sri.K.Jassaram s/o late Khiyaramji Rinwa and for other reliefs. By the impugned order, the Executing court allowed the said application I.A.No.15 and permitted the GPA Holder to prosecute the Execution proceedings in Ex.No.141/2020 on behalf of Decree holders by holding as under:- “ ORDER ON I.A.NO.15 “ The advocate for DHR No.1(a&b) has filed this application under order 3 Rule 2(A) of C.P.C thereby seeking permission of the Court to proceed with the case through the GPA Holder. It stated in the affidavit sworn by the GPA holder that the DHR No.1(a) is suffering from various ailments therefore, she cannot frequently travel to the Court on all hearing dates to conduct matter. As such, she had executed the GPA in his favour. The GPA holder produced original GPA which has been executed by DHR No.1(a) and the notary has attested the said document. Heard hearing on I.A.No.15. The DHR has filed this execution petition against the JDR to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.139/1997 dated 11.03.2002. The JDR though preferred first and second appeal in RA.No.102/2006 and RSA.No.20421/2007 but, he did not succeed. The records further reveals that, the DHR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10667 WP No. 3264 of 2026 had initially file execution petition and in pursuant to the Decree the sale deed was executed in his favour. In order to get the possession of the property, this execution petition is filed. As far as appointment of GPA/SPA holder or agent is concerned there is a clear provision under Order 3 Rule 2 CPC which permits a party to suit to appoint a GPA/SPA holder to prosecute the suit. At this stage it is relevant to refer decision of our own Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between Sajida Banu V/S Halima Banu & Others reported in 2014(4) KCCR 3463. In the decision referred supra, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has has deprecated the practice of passing the lengthy orders on applications filed under Order 3 Rule 2(a) of CPC and also calling objection from the other side. In the said decision it has been clearly held that, parties can appear and prosecute the case through GPA or SPA as a matter of right. In view of the above dictum, the Court is of the opinion that, the GPA holder is to be permitted to prosecute the case on behalf of DHR No.1(a). If the application is rejected then it will cause substantial injustice to the DHRs. In view of the direction by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka there is no necessity to call for objection from the other side. Hence, there is no impediment to allow the application. Accordingly. the Court proceed to pass the following:- ORDER I.A. No.15 filed by the GPA holder of DHR No.1(a) under order 3 Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. is hereby allowed thereby, the GPA holder is permitted to prosecute the case on behalf of the DHR No.1(a).. No order as to costs. For steps, call on. 20.01.2026.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10667 WP No. 3264 of 2026 4. Upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Executing court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.