The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging an inferior court? s order that rejected a request to prosecute a civil suit via an agent. The Court held that such permission cannot be denied if the Power of Attorney expressly allows it, protecting the Right to be heard.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.42221/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
MR. ANJINAPPA S/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT MARITHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK -572 132. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GURU PRASAD A., ADV.) AND : -------
MR. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA S/O LATE HANUMADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KARIYAPPA BADAVANE LINGENAHALLI MADHUGIRI TOWN - 572 132 … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. AHAY K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.K. ARUN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO SET ASIDE QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADHUGIRI IN
2
O.S.NO.574/2014 DATED:14.03.2019 GRANT THE COST OF THIS PETITION TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;
O R D E R
The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is: whether the trial Court could have rejected the petitioner’s request to prosecute his suit through his agent.
The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 574/2014 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri (for short, `the civil Court’). The civil Court has rejected the petitioner’s application (I.A. No. 4) under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC observing that though there is no bar for a person to prosecute the proceedings initiated by a party through his/her power of attorney holder, the petitioner contends that he has appointed his son to adduce evidence on his behalf and that would be impermissible in law.
3
This Court must observe that merely because the
power of attorney contemplates an authority to depose, the permission to prosecute the suit through the agent cannot be denied given the express provision of Order III of CPC. If the attorney chooses to examine himself, and the other side can demonstrate that he has no personal knowledge of the circumstances leading to the proceedings, the other side can take advantage of the same. Therefore, the following:
O R D E R
[a]. The petition is allowed, and the civil Court’s impugned order dated 14.03.2019 is modified permitting the petitioner to prosecute the proceedings through his agent as per the power of attorney executed by him.
4
[b]. It is observed that if the attorney examines himself as a witness on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent would be at liberty to demonstrate that he is not personally acquainted with the facts and circumstances leading to the case and therefore his evidence should be ignored.
SD/JUDGE.
LRS.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court could have rejected the petitioner?s request to prosecute his suit through his agent.
Whether permission can be denied to prosecute a suit through an agent merely because the Power of Attorney contemplates an authority to depose.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
MR. ANJINAPPA S/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAPPA
MR. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA S/O LATE HANUMADASAPPA
B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
