IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE W.P.No.48919/2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. Sri Santosh Parka, S/o Mangilal Parka, Aged about 52 years, R/at 625, 7th Main Road, 5th Cross, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040.
2. Sri Narayanlal, S/o Poonaram, Aged about 45 years, R/at 24/1, 1st Cross, CKC Garden, Bengaluru – 560 027. … PETITIONERS (By Sri Sangamesh.R.B., Adv.) AND:
1. Smt. Hanumakka, W/o late Sri Kempanna, Since dead by LRs.
1.a) Sri Doddanna, S/o late Kempanna, Aged 60 years, R/at 22/7, 3rd Main Road, Attiguppe, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040.
2. C.Anjaneyalu, S/o late Chandraiah Naidu, Aged about 75 years, R/at 16, 1st Main Road, Poornapragna Layout, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru – 560 032.
3. Smt. Sarala, W/o late N.Chandrashekar, D/o C.Anjaneyalu, Aged about 44 years, R/at No.40/1, MKK Road (KBJ Road), Nagappa Block, Srirampura, Bengaluru – 560 021.
4. H.M.Ravigowda, S/o late Marilingegowda, Aged about 45 years, R/at No.26, 22nd Main, Marenahalli Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040. … RESPONDENTS This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 27.08.2018 passed in O.S.No.10076/2006 on the file of VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-19), Bengaluru (Annexure-E).
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Trial Court, by which the General Power of Attorney executed by Kempanna – father of the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff has been referred for the opinion of the handwriting expert.
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the General Power of Attorney has been executed by the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is also the signatory to the document. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid document, the rights have accrued in favour of the petitioners as the document has been signed by the father of the plaintiff and the aforesaid fact has been admitted by the plaintiff in paragraph 8 of the plaint.
3. However, from the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the aforesaid argument was never raised before the Trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to seek review of the order dated 27.08.2018. Needless to state that if such an application is filed by the petitioners on the grounds aforesaid, the Trial Court shall decide the application in accordance with law. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KK