- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31361 W.P. No.12387/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12387/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SUMATHI SHEDTHI D/O LATE MUDDANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 2. MR. SHANTHI SHEDTHI D/O LATE MUDDANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BILLBAILU, SETHUVE ANGADI POST-SHIVAPURA VILLAGE -576112 HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV.,) AND: SMT. JAYANTHI SUNDAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS D/O LATE MUDDANNA SHETTY AND W/O SUNDAR R. SHETTY DOOR NO.2-68, AYAREBAKYAR KOWDOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT REP. BY GPA HOLDER SUNDAR R. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE RAMA SHETTY Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31361 W.P. No.12387/2021 DOOR NO.2-68, AYAREBAKYAR KOWDOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 24.03.2021 ON IA NO.13 IN O.S.NO.70/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM, KARKALA VIDE ANNX-G. ALLOW IA NO.13 IN O.S.NO.70/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM. KARKALA & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.03.2021 passed on IA.No.13 in OS.No.70/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional CJM, Karkala (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are defendants in a suit filed by the respondent seeking partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31361 W.P. No.12387/2021 petitioners filed an application seeking leave of the Court to tender evidence on their behalf by their General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, which came to be erroneously rejected by the trial Court. It is submitted that the defendants have every right to adduce their evidence by themselves, or through the GPA holder. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sajida Banu v. Halema Banu and Others1. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.M.Sandesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that during the pendency of this proceedings, defendant Nos.1 and 2 issued a notice cancelling the GPA executed in favour of Sri.B.Chandrashekhar Shetty, and the said notice has been placed before the trial Court. In view of the subsequent event, this petition would not survive for consideration. Therefore, defendants themselves have to appear before 1 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 12112 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31361 W.P. No.12387/2021 the Court and adduce their evidence. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent has filed OS.No.70/2019 seeking the reliefs of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioners are arrayed as defendants. The petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order III Rule 2(a) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking permission for defendant Nos.1 and 2 to lead the evidence through their GPA holder, namely Sri.B.Chandrashekhar Shetty. 6. The said application was supported by an affidavit indicating the reason for seeking permission to appoint GPA holder and accompanied with a copy of the GPA. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court, under the impugned order, rejected the application by assigning reasons that the defendants were - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31361 W.P. No.12387/2021 hale and healthy, aged about 61 and 51 years respectively and therefore were not entitled to adduce evidence through a GPA holder. 7. This Court in the case of Sajida Banu referred supra at paragraph Nos.8 to 10 observed as under: “8. From the above, it becomes clear that it is not obligatory on the part of the party to a litigation to appear in person, unless the law so requires. The party could prosecute or defend a legal proceedings through a Power of Attorney Holder or even a Pleader. Therefore, when the statute confers such a power on a party, it has to be honoured. The question of Court granting permission to a party to prosecute the matter through a Powder of Attorney Holder or a Pleader would not arise. However, the Court cannot prevent a party from prosecuting the litigation or defending it through a Power of Attorney Holder or a Pleader. Only in some exceptional cases, such as the case arising under the Family Courts Act, where an Advocate cannot appear as a matter of right and can appear only on the permission granted by the Court, the party has a right to be represented by a Power of Attorney Holder or a Pleader. 9. Under the above circumstances, the application filed for such prosecution is wholly misconceived Unfortunately, the Trial Court without properly appreciating the aforesaid provision has rejected the said application on the ground that, a reasonable case is not made out for allowing the said application. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31361 W.P. No.12387/2021 10. This is a recent trend in our judicial system. We find in almost every case, such applications are filed, objections are filed, arguments are canvassed and lengthy orders running to several pages are written, either allowing or rejecting the application and thereby wasting the precious time of the Court as well as the public. This ultimately results in delay in disposal of cases, which trend has to be put an end to forthwith.” 8. The aforesaid enunciation of law makes it clear that the defendants can prosecute the suit through GPA holder. Be that as it may, now the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has placed on record the notice issued by the defendants to the agent Sri.B.Chandrashekhar Shetty which indicates the cancelling of GPA. When things stood thus, in my considered view, the defendants are to adduce their evidence before the trial Court by themselves or they can adduce the evidence through another agent by fresh GPA. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 24.03.2021 passed in OS.No.70/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional CJM, Karkala is hereby set aside by permitting the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31361 W.P. No.12387/2021 defendants to lead the evidence before the trial Court by themselves or through another GPA Holder. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26