- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5497 WP No. 4482 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4482 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT MANJULA W/O K S ASHOK KUMAR, RESIDING AT BOKKIPURA VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPUR HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-561203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOJ J.N., ADV. FOR SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. CHIKKA THIMMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARASAIANA AGRAHARA, DODABALLAPURA TALUK, MADURE HOBLI, AND ALSO AT: NO.17, 23RD MAIN, PIPE LINE, ‘F’ CROSS, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 086 2. SMT. ERRA HANUMAKKA, D/O LATE CHIKKABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOPPAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TUGANI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5497 WP No. 4482 of 2025 3. SMT. CHIKKAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. RESIDING AT THOPPAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TUGANI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117. 4. SMT. BYRAMMA, D/O LATE CHIKKABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.720, 18TH MAIN, MEI LAYOUT BAGALAKUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 560 073 5. SRI. G.LOKESH S/O LATE C.P. GANGADHARASWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.61, “GANGADESHWARA NILAYA”, 4TH BLOCK, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 097 6. SRI. R.V.SRINIVASA, S/O R.M.VENKATARAMAIAH, MAJOR 7. MS. HARPITHA D/O R V SRINIVAS MINOR 8. MR. NAGENDRA S/O R.V.SRINIVASA MAJOR, R5 TO R8 ARE RESIDENTS OF RAMESHWARA VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 204 9. SRI. NARAYANA, S/O LATE CHIKKABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5497 WP No. 4482 of 2025 YASHODA NAGARA, OPP. JAKKUR AIRPORT, JAKKUR POST, YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE – 560 064. 10. SMT. RAJAMMA, D/O LATE CHIKKABYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT 1ST MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010 11. SMT. SHARADAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKABYARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT 1ST MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KOTEGOWDA R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, R9, R10 & R11; NOTICE TO R5, R6, R7, R8 ARE D/W V/O 04.03.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 10.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DODDABALLAPUR IN O.S.NO.45/2011 ON I.A.NO.16 VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant No.5 in O.S.No.45/2011 is directed against the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 whereby the application-I.A.No.XVI filed by the petitioner-defendant No.5 under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5497 WP No. 4482 of 2025 Order 3 Rule 2 r/w Section 151 CPC for permission to prosecute the case through her husband – Special Power of Attorney holder was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant No.5 and other defendants for declaration, possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The petitioner-defendant No.5 as well as other defendants having contested the suit, the matter was posted for evidence of defendant No.5, at which stage, the petitioner- defendant No.5 filed the instant application seeking permission to defend the suit through her husband – Special Power of Attorney holder. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5497 WP No. 4482 of 2025 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the sole ground on which the Trial Court came to the conclusion that defendant No.5 being a competent witness was not entitled to nominate her husband to give evidence on her behalf. In this context, the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate that the legality, validity, evidentiary value, competency, etc., of the evidence of husband of defendant No.5 would necessarily have to be decided after a full-fledged trial and not at the stage of considering an application for permission to appoint / nominate her husband to lead evidence on her behalf. 5. In addition thereto, having regard to the provisions contained in Order 3 CPC read with Section 120 of the Evidence Act, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court fell in error in rejecting I.A.No.XVI filed by the petitioner, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed in O.S.No.45/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5497 WP No. 4482 of 2025 Doddaballapura, on application-I.A.No.XVI, is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A.No.XVI is hereby allowed. (iv) Petitioner is permitted to defend the suit through her husband – SPA holder. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the plaintiffs to request the Trial Court to draw inference / adverse inference against the petitioner – defendant No.5 for not entering the witness box and not personally appearing before the Trial Court and all rival contentions in this regard are kept open to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 94