Karnataka High Court
Smt. Subbarathnamma vs Sri. Dodda Anjinappa on 28 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24207
WP No.50269 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.50269 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUBBARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMAKKA
W/O JYARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SRI. THIPPANNA
S/O THOTI SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Digitally signed
by RUPA V RESIDING AT NAGALAMADIKE VILLAGE
PAVAGADA TALUK
Location: HIGH
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISHA V, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. DODDA ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE TALVAR SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
2. SRI. SUBBANNA
S/O LATE TALVAR SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
3. SRI. CHANNAPPA
S/O LATE TALVAR SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24207
WP No.50269 of 2018
4. SRI N.S. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O LATE TALVAR SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
5. SRI. SANNA ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE TALVAR SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT NAGALAMADIKE VILLAGE
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.A. VISHWANATHA REDDY, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON
IA NO.5 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PAVAGADA IN O.S.NO.106/2016 DTD:4.6.2018 VIDE
ANENXURE-E AS ILLEGAL AND VOID. DIRECT THE TRAIL
COURT TO PERMIT/ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO PROSECUTE
THE O.S.NO.106/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PAVAGADA THROUGH HER GPA HOLDER
AS SOUGHT IN IA NO.5 VIDE ANEXURE-C & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24207
WP No.50269 of 2018
ORDER
This petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order
dated 04.06.2018 passed on I.A.No.5/2016 in
O.S.No.106/2016 by the Sr. Civil Judge JMFC, Pavagada
wherein the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under
Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was
rejected.
2. Heard Sri.Girisha V., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed an application
seeking permission to adduce evidence to prove her case
through the GPA holder who is none other than the uncle of the
plaintiff. It is submitted that the Trial Court erroneously
rejected the said application by the impugned order. It is
further submitted that it is always open for the defendants to
cross-examine the said witness / GPA holder after the evidence
is recorded and if the GPA holder adduces the evidence more
than his knowledge, it is open to challenge by way of cross
NC: 2024:KHC:24207
examination. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order
dated 04.06.2018 by permitting the petitioner / plaintiff to
adduce evidence through the GPA holder.
4. Though the notice is served on the respondents, they
remained absent and are placed exparte.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
6. It is not disputed that the petitioner who is the plaintiff
in O.S.No.106/2016 filed a suit for declaration that the
judgment and decree dated 21.04.1989 passed in
O.S.No.105/1985 by the Munsiff and JMFC, Pavagada is not
binding on her. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an
application under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the
CPC seeking permission to adduce evidence through the GPA
holder. The said application came to be rejected. The Trial
Court, by a well considered order, referring to the various
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has rejected the
application.
NC: 2024:KHC:24207
7. There is no dispute that Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the
CPC empowers the agent under the power of attorney to act on
behalf of the principal and the act done by the agent in exercise
of power granted to him binds the principal. When things stood
thus, it is always open for the agent to depose in a suit filed by
the principal only to the extent of his knowledge with regard to
the suit and not more than that. He cannot do all the acts on
behalf of plaintiff. The word 'act' employed in Order III Rule 1
and 2 of CPC, confined only in respect of the 'acts' done by the
Power of Attorney Holder in exercise of power granted to him
under the power of attorney. The term 'act' would not amount
to permission to give evidence on behalf of plaintiff as he
cannot have any personal knowledge about the suit.
8. In the instant case, the nature of the suit is that the
suit is filed seeking declaration that earlier judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.105/1985 is not binding on the
plaintiff. Admittedly, the GPA holder was not party to the
earlier suit and he is a stranger to the property in question in
the said suit. Hence, he cannot have any personal knowledge
with regard to the subject matter of the suit. The Trial Court,
taking note of various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
NC: 2024:KHC:24207
has rejected the application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
recent decision in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. Anand kumar
and others in Civil Appeal No.7840/2023 referring to the
earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the
agent cannot act more than what was conferred on him by the
instrument, cannot have any personal knowledge with regard to
the dispute between the parties and is not entitled to depose.
Taking note of the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered
view that the order under challenge, is neither perverse nor
contrary to the settled principles of law.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
