Karnataka High Court
WP/8139/2021 of SMT N P NAGARATHNA Vs SRI V G SHIVAPRAKASH on 3 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010170522021 NC: 2026:KHC:47925 W.P. No.8139/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.8139/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N.P. NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.8139/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. N.P. NAGARATHNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O SRI. C.P. SADASHIVA REDDY
R/AT NO.66, 13TH D CROSS
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
KAGGADASAPURA
C.V. RAMANAGARA POST
BENGALURU-560093.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVASAN T, ADV.,)
AND:
1.
SRI. V.G. SHIVAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O SRI. GAJENDRAN
PROPRIETOR M/S PEACOCK
PROPERTIES, NO.25/1
MEANEE AVENUE, TANK ROAD
BHARATHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560042.
2.
SRI. R. PRASANNA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O SRI RAMCHANDRAN REDDY
NO.12, MANJUNATHA NILAYA
INDIRA GANDHI, 1ST MAIN B
UDAY NAGAR
B. NARAYANAPURA
DOORAVANINAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560016.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VASANTH V. FERNANDES, ADV., FOR R2
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2021 PASSED ON
THE APPLICATION BEARING I.A.NO.5, UNDER ORDER 3 RULE 2
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
IN THE SUIT BEARING O.S.NO.5377/2020 ON THE LXXV ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-76) AS
PER
ANNEXURE-A,
ALLOW
THIS
PETITION
AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.5 & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.04.2021 passed on IA.No.5 in OS.No.5377/2020 by the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-76) (for short ‘the trial Court’).
2. Heard Sri.Srinivasan T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Vasanth V. Fernandes, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioner filed a suit in OS.No.5377/2020 against the respondents seeking recovery of money. In the
HC-KAR
said suit, the respondents filed their written statements and the matter was thereafter posted for trial. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), seeking permission to adduce evidence through her Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder, Sri.K.G.Srinivasa Murthy, on the ground that the plaintiff is suffering from an ailment. The trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the said application on the ground that the SPA holder did not have personal knowledge about the transactions.
4. A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application indicates that the SPA holder claims to have the personal knowledge about the transactions. Be that as it may, it is required to be noticed that, if the SPA holder speaks more than his personal knowledge, it is always open for the defendants to cross-examine the SPA holder on the said aspect. In my considered view, the trial Court
HC-KAR
has committed a grave error in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 01.04.2021 passed in OS.No.55377/2020 by the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-76), is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.5 filed by the plaintiff under Order III Rule 2 of the CPC is allowed. iii. The SPA holder of the plaintiff is permitted to adduce the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. No order as to costs.
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24