JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S.No.20/2013 for a decree of declaration, partition and other reliefs is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 05.12.2014 whereby her application filed under Order XXVI Rules 4 (1) (a) (2) (3), 6, 7 & 8 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for recording of her evidence by Court Commissioner has been rejected. After service of notice, the respondent-defendants have entered appearance through their learned counsel who resists the writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent petitioner plaintiff argues that, regard being had to the advanced age of the petitioner i.e., 78 years; her bad health condition as prima facie demonstrated by the material placed on record before the Court below and the long distance of about 400 kms between her residential place i.e., Bangalore City and suit place i.e., Karkala town, the impugned order rejecting her application breeds lot of injustice and hardship and therefore, the same warrants indulgence of writ court; the Court below proceeded on a wrong assumption that the petitioner-plaintiff can lead her evidence by appointing a Power of Attorney which course,