IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.31409/2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Sri.B.A.Linga Reddy, S/o Anantha Reddy, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, Residing at “Anantha”, RTO Office Road, Chitradurga – 577501.
(By Sri.Siddappa.B.M, Advocate) AND:
M/s. National Insurance Co., Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 2nd floor, Shiva Naradamuni Plaza, MCC B Block, Dental College Road, Davanagere – 577001.
(By Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate) …Petitioner ...Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the learned Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Davanagere on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.100/2015 dated 13.04.2016 produced as Annx-E to the W.P.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery for a sum of Rs.12,78,700/- being the claim towards the cost of repair of the vehicle. As the respondent declined to accede to the claim, suit came to be filed. The GPA holder of the petitioner has filed an application under Order III Rule 2 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC seeking leave to lead evidence through the power of attorney holder stating that he was the Manager in the travel enterprise belonging to the plaintiff.
2. It is stated that the power of attorney holder was in the know of the relevant facts. The trial Court however has rejected the said application on the ground that the power of attorney holder cannot give evidence to the matters which are in the knowledge of the plaintiff.
3. It is to be noted that while granting of leave to the attorney holder to represent the plaintiff, the question as to whether the power of attorney holder is in the know of facts which are within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff, may not in all matters be a relevant consideration. The personal knowledge of the facts by the attorney holder is a matter that would come out only during trial, that cannot be a sole criteria to decide on the application filed under Order III Rule 2 of CPC. Even otherwise, the case that is made out by the petitioner is that the attorney holder was in the know of facts that have given rise to the claim as he was the General Manager of the plaintiffs enterprise 4. Accordingly, the application deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is set aside. I.A.No.2 is allowed permitting the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff to represent the plaintiff and to lead evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. Needless to state the question as to whether the power of attorney holder had knowledge regarding the facts given rise to the claim is a matter to be ascertained during trial and the evidence that is led by the attorney holder is to be confined to the matters within the knowledge of the attorney holder.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS