319′ THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA.TA.I{A CIRCUIT BE’N_Cfi
AT I)!-IARWAD
Dated this the 3″‘ day of December, 2(}__(“j8″ 4′ ;. A’
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MR. Jus*3;f1cI«;:.i§r.j1.i§1;ni:,;§.i§ ” _ [ ‘T
Writ Petition No. 29g1__ 0f2′{)¥}’f”{GM–{;f1*kfi}V’V ”
Between:
Sri Kallanagouda
S/’ 0 Ningaxzagouda ‘FQ1a1;}avar
Aged 58 years 3 I ‘ V . 1
OCC: Ag:rict1I£zi1’é««._ ‘
Resident offxgiaigigainciii’ ‘_ ‘
Tq. Hubli _ “‘::;:_ V
Represetnteci ¥:T}y5.’1:is ‘ ‘ 4′ _ —
G92′; hoIc1cr’– Sr; N’i1i§a1iagO”ugiVé1~ ‘
Naganagozgdaz Tolagiaxéear ” ‘~ ” ” ‘ .
Aged about”3_4UAycar:a
Occ: Agzicultiirist ‘ –
R/0 ,.A%s:1argu;:1c;:1:’ ~ é
H’. .. «. I z ….. .. H
§}ist.r_i(:t _{)h:;;:..<";§?aci_ Petitioner
A 5;§Ié.y Sri S Y Shivalii, Advocate)
V V' _ And?
A. Sfifiasanagouda
_ “Slot Clrzannabasanagouda
” Balaarad
Age 73 years
Qcc: Agriculture
Residetnt of Ad3rg”:_1n.chi
Tq. Hubli
2 Sxti Ninganagouda
S /0 Channabasanagoucia
Baiaarad
Age 7 1 years
Oee: Agficulture
Resident efAciarg11:1chi _ _
Tq. Hubli z…ReepO11§icn’i£§”._.
This Writ Petifion is filetitiizgler Hfiicies 227 of
the Constitution of India, prayii1.g”to quash “Elie G1fde1- dated.
5-=-2-2007 made on memo in OS…!\’_{).»8_’?”/,,2GG6 “passed by the II!
Additzkmal Cd. (.3r.’I)n.)v bet:eg._arbit1*a1y, erroxteous ami
Without any basis which” ti”; equity and justice
{Annexure–G). ‘ 1 ‘
This c<;vI:1–:=:};1': g'«.e':t§.:_"fo_i" this day, the
Court maée_tl3.e. fo§1e§3?i:Lg:« _
aguse
'flee this Writ Petition challenging
the Ortiflf fiied by the defendants on
zejee1§ng Htheiaffidavit of PW 1, the power of attorney
A V ' ' . 2 tejider ef .
Q A 2. has filed the suit for specific: performance
Qgef an egxeement of sale. He has given a power of attorney to
V’h,iet””b_:rother’s son 1:0 adduee evidence ix: the suit. The
t defendants filed a memo on 10.1.2007 stating that the atfidavit
Way of examination. in chief is filed by the power of attorney
header of the piaintifi’ which is not permiesihie in View of the
A/,
law laid down by the Supreme Court in ELR S2005
8. powar of attorney holder cannot be allowed ‘
wimess on behafi” 0f the plaintiff in K ”
Therefore, they sought for rejetztion ”
said memo was opposczi. V%1{5’;s?¢Ver,”‘ the’ fiTia}[ (3o;1t-t on–_’
consideration of the conteVx1fif<3z1s'V.g;iIo\$fe:%.[_fiE1e fiaemo am}
rejected the afiifiavit 0f"fi'WA1".~ the same, the
petifioner is beforgthis C4)'m*t{f V V' .
3. The 3::~;;;i1″‘;:_1zd~g,;:..__ that, in the power of
anomeggz it ié :11;-Q ‘p’1.é;1mn’fi° due: to his old age is
not in a pV0sition1;};1c Court. But, no documents
am pmducefi’ ti) he is suffering from any disease.
V’ Le>AhiIr:;;i1’i–*–.ria:w of the aferesaid judgment a pcswer of
__a”iit§vf*n,c;§i’v.§§£siiiag§t”–be allowed to appear as 3 wimetss cm bahaif of
31$ capacity 0f the piaintiff. Furthar, it was hcid
tl1at’ti<n§ Ayofier 0f att€:::'ney was not born on the date ef 'the; suit
A $.gf¢«3mént datad 19.721961. 'Therefere, he Canxmt dsgose'
2A'i"fiéi;;A&f0r€:, the aifidavit of the: power of attorney holdar was
'gejecteez but the pxagmxf was directed tr; file a fresh afiidavit in
mspect of his case. The said orciar is the result of
11/.
5
evidence to come on record it is fer the Court to decide whether
an ‘””
the issues in the suit is proved or not. in that View of the
matter, the order passed by the trial élourt rejecting the
affidavit of the power of attorney holder is illegal and Iiaf.)’1e.to
be set aside. It is for the plainee to decide whether~~h’e_&’
depose in the ease or not. He cannot be eompeiieé, i:e.A_1dep@s§e–«T b
as directed by the triei Court. The
note of the judgment of this Court.
AND OTHERS vs ALLISAB .AlV1″2e.; (?THEV1.?S_[:’I;-1i’_=$3356′ gem V
3129} and pmeeed with the suit law.
Hence, I {Sass the “.&~,;__«§icr:–‘
{Q} , W5′: §e1’I’i1’.()nA:;$ eiiozyed.
v.Tf1:e&impzH1:«yhéd weer is sei aside.
V flied by the defendants is rejecafed.
‘ ‘ v_ ifeurt shaff proceed as c:.vfores::zz’d,
Sd/-.
Judge