EN THE HEGH comm' 0;? KARNATAKA, :;g§.:'{IV:c;"';f;>§'fj,;s;)."i2.wE
DATED THIS THE; 3RD DAY OF' sEPrE'fi§'8;?;§,;":éé
BEE'i}R*1':?« « A
THE HOWBLE MRS. JUs'f':.cE.A.A;v1AN.TmI;;;a ._
WRIT PE'rI'1*1Qi¢. §Io._%1T47A7,* 2c:v1:.f)T';*-sf;;1s;AI}'j;;a;£ %
--S10 Laie Muniyappa
E:-'.3.
Agiadfabout 55 yaars
_ " Extension
" = E3a;1ga10fe«Mysem Road
Raitgjtaiiagarma 'Fawn
. Bommegowda
'VS/0 Lats: Chezmappa
Aged about 34 years
H 3. Shivaswamy
S} 0 Late Channappa
Agefii abeut 50 years
4, Smt. Puttasidéamma
W/0 Late Chzmnappa
Majer in age
Resjp0:1.dr::nt $103.2 to 4 are
Residents {sf ijoer Extension
Ma1lesWara'I't:mpie * _
Ramanagarajn 'I'm=:zn ZRES_I3€)I'~I
(By Sri. K. Anantha Murthy, f.t2i;'I}V:." V '
This WP. is file€i.T':1:1dm"A_rt:"mle '2?.'5V:é 2l2?' nf*ih€
Constituiisn of India prayiixg to quash_t1s3: pa3s€:é:iv by
the learned Civil Judgty '{J:r. * 'Z3116; «JMF"C., at
Ramanagarazn ().S.N.o,1'86}"2_QO0 'G11v_AAI.ffi.N<3. 10 dated
7.12.2009
Viiifi Anmaxurtfi-E _a I1d. ‘i£’J”a11o1x.7 the application fled
by the pe£.ifioner,l3-*5 dt=:ic%11€§,a;:1t’:.11;:i er Order $1}. Rule 2 I’/W
Sec. 151 of Civil ProcedL11*é’CI;>de=~«.19Q8. Vida An.nexuI’€:–E’,.
This’ o’11 f€i1″– Hearing in “B”
Group ihis &fI§i}*.§_ thécawgrt magic 1316 foilowing;
%,oRnER
A The c:>.11{;°:5x*:::*s§,{°i;étxvec11 the parties in this cast: ssems
£10 he tfie ~;~’:QV11″<':13f tiie 3"' dafendant coming on 1'€iC€)1'"d as power
V. ;3f" %{1}tt:§r:t;¢y of the 3rd defendant and the apprehcnsion
fihfifioncr seems to be the son of the 3" defendant
A bei1;~g $§;aTadv0catc weuld page a ciifliculay task in the C1:r::sss~
éxaéxlination, timtrefore, he Cannot be allowed to come on
.re<:ord as prewar of attorney holder sf 3"' defendant.
2. The other contentions of that msp0:1Ci€I:t/ plaintiff
seam ta be that there are certain facts, which has to be put
-3-
to the 3″ defendant alone in the Cr’ss–examinati.0I1«
Therefere, power ef attorney helder of the defensiarxt No.3
cannot be allowed to come en recorel.
3, Apparently, the suit seems to i’::>_r
injilnctioxz in respect of a si1eA”Vs’ii!1at<:d _W:i t.i;i1_1 Rzitneiigagar AV
City. It is net in dispute that i;t;;;7.g¢;§ca1Ied 'Advocéftejsen of 'A
3"' defendant is a praeVtiej_:1i:g_A Aéfieeater "fives with
the 3" defendant {rem the—ee.gin1i:LQg.
4. In a 311;’; ‘T’foVr f£111s:ti< )1:$,;_'v gjormafiy eomplicateci
qiiestibms Vefiiaxa? be invoived. Even if the son of the
3" c{efefitia1it.i$'Au'nef[':1e to answer relevant questions in the
.«.icfoss~exa£i31inatio:3, it would be advantage to the plaintiff
A disadvantage. On the other hand, when the
not pertain to any ecwntroversy of persona}
reiatioziship between the parties, it; the normal course there
A. , shoeid not be any objection to represent a party by gaewer of
eattemey he-ider. Under these circumstances, it would be
pexmissibie for the petiiionerl 3" defendant to examine his
son in his piace and the respondcrnt can CI'O$Sf_C:Xa:fl3§£].€V
sex: of '33:: petitioner as power of attamey holfl§§r.v '
of.