HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6387 WP No. 21522 of 2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 21522 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KALPANA MUTHU W/O A.MUTHU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PROPRIETIX FOR M/S. NORTH STAR CONCEPTS, WITH THEIR OFFICE AT NO.60, 2ND FLOOR, N.A.L. WIND TUNNEL ROAD, MURUGESHPALYA, BENGALURU-560 017. 2. SRI. A.MUTHU S/O ANNAMALI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, M/S NORTH STAR CONCEPTS, WITH THEIR OFFICE AT NO.60, 2ND FLOOR, N.A.L. WIND TUNNEL ROAD, MURUGESHPALYA, BENGALURU-560 017. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VASUNDARA RAMASWAMY W/O LATE K.RAMASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R./ATNO.203, SUBII LAKSHANA PARADISE, 2ND CROSS, HANUMANTHA REDDY LAYOUT, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560 043. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6387 WP No. 21522 of 2021 -2- 2. SRI. BHUSHAN KHOTARI S/O BEHRULAL.R.JAIN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT 49/25, NAMBULIAR STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RACHITH.M.L., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMAKRISHNA SRINIVASAN., ADVOCATE) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNX-A DTD 11.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25204/2016 ON I.A.NO.1/2021 BY THE HON’BLE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-21), BY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 11.11.2021 passed on I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.25204/2016, by the learned 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH- 21) [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an application under XXVI Rules 1 and 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6387 WP No. 21522 of 2021 -3- Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”] filed by the respondent/plaintiff, has been allowed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 3 submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity since the respondent No.1/plaintiff did not place any medical documents or records to satisfy the Court that she is unable to appear before the Court. He further submits that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had earlier appeared before the Court and this is not disputed by the learned counsel. Thus, if the respondent No.1/plaintiff had previously appeared, what would prevent her from appearing once again. In addition, the learned counsel submits that the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 1 of the CPC sets out that it is compulsory to file medical documents in support of the contentions. 2.1. In this behalf, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mukambika Vs. Rajesha Venkatraman Bhat and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6387 WP No. 21522 of 2021 -4- another1. In addition, the learned counsel seeks to rely upon a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Adhir Chandra Banerjee Vs. Smt. Lilabati Mukherjee2. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was more than 75 years old in the year 2021 and today she would be more than 80 years old. He further submits that although the respondent No.1/plaintiff did appear before the Court, subsequently, on one occasion, she had directed her Advocate to file an application under Order XXVI, Rules 1 and 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 3.1. The learned counsel seeks to rely upon I.A.No.1/ 2021 in O.S.No.25204/2016 filed by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff, in this behalf. 1 W.P. No.82786/2013(GM-CPC) v/o.dt.18.01.2014 2 (1993) AIR (Calcutta) 296: (1993) SCC OnLine Cal 61 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6387 WP No. 21522 of 2021 -5- 4. This Court, by its order dated 01.12.2021 had directed that further proceedings in the Original Suit shall remain stayed and thereafter the interim order has continued as is. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the application that has been placed on record seeking permission for a Commission is neither signed by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff nor has any affidavit been filed. Thus, when the application itself suffers from a procedural infirmity, the Impugned Order could not have been passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the relevant provisions do not compulsorily require medical documents to be filed. He further submits that, if, in the interest of justice, he be provided an opportunity, he would file an application, duly signed and verified by the respondent No.1/plaintiff along with requisite documents, setting out all relevant averments. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6387 WP No. 21522 of 2021 -6- 7. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside. However, the respondent No.1/plaintiff is granted liberty to file an appropriate application in accordance with law, in the event that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is unable to appear before the Court. 8. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. The rights and contentions of both parties are left open to be agitated before the learned Trial Court. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA