Smt Lakshmamma v. Anjanappa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4009/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS AGRICULTURISRT R/OF YEREMANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT 563123.

REP. BY HER SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAJANNA S/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT YERAMANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR, ADV., FOR SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADV.,)

AND:

¶1ANJANAPPA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1A. SMT. GANGAMMA

by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39545( W.P.(No.4009/2021( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010084872021( ( ( W/O,LATE,ANJANAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,65,YEARS., , 1B., MANJULA, D/O,LATE,ANJANAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS, , BOTH,ARE,PRESENTLY,RESIDING,AT,NO.277, ND2 ,STAGE,,MUNISWAMAPPA,EXTENTION, CHENNANAYAKANA,PALYA, NAGASANDRA,POST, BANGALORE,NORTH,TALUK, BENGALURU,DISTRICT-560073., (AMENDED,VIDE,ORDER,DATED,6.7.2026), ,

2., THAMMAIAH, SON,OF,THIMMAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,65,YEARS., , BOTH,ARE,PRESENTLY,R/AT,NO.277, 2ND,STAGE,,MUNISWAMAPPA,EXTENTION, CHENNANAYAKANA,PALYA, NAGASANDRA,POST, BANGALORE,NORTH,TALUK, BENGALURU,560073., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,C.V.,SUDHINDRA,,ADV.,,FOR,R1(A,&,B),&,R2),, , , THIS, WP, FILED, PRAYING, TO-CALL, FOR, THE, RECORDS, AND, PROCEEDINGS, OF, THE, CASEQUASH, THE, ORDER, DATED,

5.2.2021, PASSED, BY, THE, COURT, OF, THE, PRINCIPAL, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, JMFC, AT, NELAMANGALA, ON, I.A.NO.III, IN, OS.NO.63/1996,,CERTIFIED,COPY,OF,WHICH,IS,PRODUCED,AS, ANNEXURE-F, AND, TO, ALLOW, THE, I.A.NO.III, FILED, BY, THE, PETITIONER, IN, O.S.NO.63/1996, TRUE, COPY, OF, WHICH, IS, PRODUCED, AS, ANNEXURE-DGRANT, AN, INTERIM, ORDER, TO, STAY, ALL, FURTHER, PROCEEDINGS, IN, O.S.NO.63/1996, PENDING,IN,THE,COURT,OF,THE,PRINCIPAL,CIVIL,JUDGE,AND, JMFC, AT, NELAMANGALAPOST, THIS, W.P., FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,BEFORE,SINGLE,JUDGE,v,DTD-23.02.2021.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

05.02.2021 passed on IA.No.3 in OS.No.63/1996 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala (for short 'the trial Court').

¶2Heard Sri.G.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.V.Sudhindra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶3The petitioner - Smt.Lakshmamma filed OS.No.63/1996 against the respondents seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated

16.01.1990. In the said suit, defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that he had no objection to

decree the suit. The original plaintiff - Smt.Lakshmamma led the evidence. However, the said witness could not be cross-examined by the defendants, as they were placed ex parte and the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The records indicate that the defendants preferred an appeal in RA.No.2/2010. The Appellate Court, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, and remitted the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and proceed with the suit. It is required to be noticed that, during the pendency of the appeal, the original plaintiff, who was the respondent therein, filed an application seeking permission to lead evidence through her Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder, and the Appellate Court has permitted the same by allowing the said application. It is further to be noticed that after remand, the original plaintiff - Smt.Lakshmamma, filed an application in the suit seeking permission to lead further evidence through her SPA holder in view of her personal

incapacity. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The trial Court, under the impugned order dismissed the application.

¶4It is also to be noticed that the evidence led by Smt.Lakshmamma before remand was without the cross-examination by the defendants. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that SPA holder of the plaintiff would be available for cross-examination in place of the plaintiff. Such a course may not be correct, and the said prayer cannot be granted. It is open for the original plaintiff - Smt.Lakshmamma to be available for cross-examination by the defendants' counsel and failing which, the consequences under law will follow. It is needless to observe that if the plaintiff intends to lead further evidence through her SPA holder independently, it is permissible under law, which can be allowed as fresh evidence. If the plaintiff intends to lead fresh evidence through her SPA holder, the trial Court shall permit the same without

insisting upon the filing of a fresh application. With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed upholding the order of the trial Court by permitting the SPA holder of the plaintiff to lead fresh evidence or alternatively it is also permitted for the original plaintiff to make herself available for cross-examination. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21