Karnataka High Court
Smt H P Sunandadevi vs H P Mahaveer on 7 February, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.2735 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. H.P. SUNANDADEVI
W/O LATE V. SHANTHIPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER,
KUM. S. AKSHATHA,
D/O LATE V. SHANTHIPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT 22/56,
PADMA KRUPA, 2ND CROSS,
BHARAMARAMBA EXTENSION,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
H.P. MAHAVEER.
S/O LATE P. PAYAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #22/56,
PADMA KRUPA, 2ND CROSS,
BHARAMARAMBA EXTENSION,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
2
IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHAMARAJANAGAR IN
O.S.NO.123/2019 DTD. 22.09.2021 ON I.A. 6/2021 VIDE
ANNX-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINARY
HEARING' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner aggrieved by the order on
I.A.No.6/2021 dated 22.09.2021 passed in
O.S.No.123/2019 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Chamarajanagar has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition
are as under:
The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.123/2019
seeking for the relief permanent injunction. In the said
suit, the respondent appeared and filed the written
statement. The trial Court framed the issues. When the
case is posted for plaintiff's evidence, the petitioner filed
I.A.No.6/2021 seeking to conduct the case through GPA
holder. The said application was opposed by the
respondent. The trial Court after hearing the arguments,
rejected the application. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is suffering from Knee problem and also
Blood sugar and unable to appear before the Court on all
the hearing dates to adduce evidence. He further submits
that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the
application. He further submits that the petitioner is aged
about 66 years and unable to appear before the trial Court
and conduct the case. Hence, he submits that the
impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the
law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ
petition.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent
injunction. The respondent appeared and filed the written
statement. The trial Court framed the issues. When the
case is posted for plaintiff's evidence, the petitioner has
filed an application seeking to appear and to conduct the
case through GPA holder alleging that the petitioner is
suffering from knee problem and blood Sugar and other
ailments. In support of the petitioner's case, the petitioner
has not produced any medical records to show that the
petitioner is suffering from the old age ailments. Further,
the trial Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs
Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. has recorded the finding that
the power of attorney holder has no knowledge about the
case and the power of attorney holder is too young and
she does not have any knowledge about the case.
However, the power of attorney holder has no personal
knowledge about the facts of the case. Hence, it was not
proper to permit the petitioner to conduct the case through
power of attorney holder. As rightly observed by the trial
Court, the petitioner has not produced any medical records
in support of her contention. Hence, the trial Court after
considering the entire material on record is justified in
rejecting the application. Hence, I do not find any ground
to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ssb
