IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.35713 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) & WRIT PETITION NOS.36567-36568 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. KUSUMA KUMARI W/O LATE SRI. S.VENKATESHWARLU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.189-A, MLA COLONY, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500034 (BY SRI. RAMESH P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. B.G.CHENNAPPA, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. MR. HARSHAVARDHAN, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.17/2, ONKARNAGAR, GANEKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE.
3. DR. HAFEEZUR RAHMAN, S/O LATE A.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 4. MR. SHAFEEQUR RAHMAN, S/O LATE A.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ... PETITIONER NO.3 & 4 ARE RESIDING AT 599, MINA, 2ND MAIN, TEACHER’S COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.
5. MR. NAJEEBUR RAHMAN, S/O LATE A.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDENT OF AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN. 573101 6. MRS. KAMARUNNISA, 79 YEARS, D/O LATE A.ABDUL AZEEZ, 7. MRS. FARHATH HAYATH, 60 YEARS, D/O LATE A.ABDUL AZEEZ, W/O LATE C.R.MOHD HAYATH, NO.6 & 7 RESIDENTS OF AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN. 573101 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. NAJEEBUR RAHMAN 54 YEARS, S/O LATE A.ABDUL AZEEZ, RESIDENT OF AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN.573101 8. MR. SYED AFROZ, 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED BHUSE, AND LATE SMT RAHAMATHUNNISA, 9. SRI. SYED SHERAZ, 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED BHUSE LATE SMT RAHAMATHUNNISA, 10. MRS. SAIRA RAFATH, 39 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED GHUSE LATE SMT. RAHAMATHUNNISA, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF AREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573101.
11. SRI. K.GANESH BABU, 48 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, D.NO.26/1-1, "CHAITANYA"
2ND CROSS, M.T.LAYOUT, 13TH CROSS, BEHIND MES COLLEGE, BANGALORE-53, ALSO AT NO.23, GROUND FLOOR, MODEL LIC HOUSING COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560079 12. SMT. K.SHIVAMMA MAJOR, W/O LATE MR. GURUSIDDAPPA, BHAVIHAL VILLAGE, NARAGANAHALLI TALUK AND DISTRICT:
DAVANAGERE-577213. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.J.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11;
NOTICE TO R1 TO R10 & R12 IS D/W V/O DTD.11/09/2018) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ANNEXURE-A, THE ORDERS ON I.A.S.6, 7, AND 10 DTD:19.7.2018 PASSED BY THE XXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE[CCH-6] IN MISC NO.57/2014 AND DISPOSE OF THE SAID CASE EXPEDITIOUSLY IN A TIME BOUND MANNER AS MAY BE DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S.No.8729/2004 and being the petitioner in Misc.No.57/2014 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 19.07.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby, the learned Principal City Civil, Bengaluru, having rejected her request for production of powers of attorney has denied, her further request for recalling PW.1 to the witness box. After service of notice, respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the Writ Petition.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court grants indulgence in the matter because:
a. the reasoning of the Court below that the signatures of one particular power of attorney is not forthcoming, on the document appears to be thoroughly misconceived especially when a certified copy of notarized power of attorney and another new power of attorney were already on record; and b. if there is any dispute as to the authenticity of the powers of attorney, it is a matter for consideration after hearing the other side; the dispute as to the authenticity per se is not a ground for rejection of the applications.
In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions succeed; the impugned order is set at naught; the subject application having been favoured; petitioner is permitted to produce the subject powers of attorney; and further permitted to examine PW-1 in support of her case.
All contentions of parties are kept open. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS