Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Giriyappa, S/O (Late) Thimmaiah – Appellant
Versus
Thimmamma W/O Venkataiah @Thammaiah – Respondent
ORDER :
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.59/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kunigal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) is directed against the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, whereby the application I.A.No.6 filed by the respondent – plaintiff under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for permission to appoint her daughter as SPA Holder to prosecute the case on her behalf was allowed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
3. For the order proposed, service of notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners –defendant Nos.1 and 2 and other respondents for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the respondent – defendant Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed the instant application I.A.No.VI under Order III Rule 2 of CPC seeking permission to appoint her daughter as SPA holder to prosecute the ca
A plaintiff may prosecute a case through a Special Power of Attorney holder, and defendants retain the right to challenge any such evidence during cross-examination.
Plaintiff has not appeared in witness box and statement given by GPA holder cannot be substituted for statement of plaintiff and for this reason also adverse inference can also be drawn against plain....
A Power of Attorney holder cannot depose for a plaintiff unless exceptional circumstances are proved.
The power of attorney holder cannot depose for the principal in matters of which the principal alone can have personal knowledge.
A Power of Attorney holder may manage proceedings but cannot testify on behalf of the principal for acts beyond their knowledge or where the principal must be cross-examined.
Witness testimony cannot be replaced unless substantial medical evidence of incapacity is provided; the trial court's decision upheld as valid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
