In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the

order dated 05^th January, 2019 passed in Original Suit No.104 of

2004 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote

dismissing the IA filed by the defendant filed under Order XVIII

Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The brief facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that

the respondent herein is the plaintiff in Original Suit No.104 of

2004 on the file of the trial Court seeking declaration with relief

of permanent injunction. The defendant has filed written

3

statement in the suit. The defendant-petitioner herein is blind

and in this regard the defendant has placed the certificate as per

Annexure-B. As such, she has nominated Sri Manjunath H.K.

(her son-in-law) to pursue the proceedings before the trial Court

in Original Suit No.104 of 2004. In the meanwhile, the said

Manjunath (son-in-law) of the defendant died on account of

COVID-19 pandemic and as such the defendant has filed

application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure to recall the order dated 11^th December, 2018 and

permit her to lead evidence in the suit. The said application

came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by

the same, the defendant has preferred this writ petition.

Sri

Raghunath,

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner contended that the defendant is blind and as such, she

appointed her son-in-law Manjunath H.K. as attorney to do acts,

deeds and things on behalf of her in Original Suit No.104 of

2004. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the

suit was set down for defendant9s evidence on 11^th December,

2018, however, no representation has been made on behalf of

the defendant and as such, the trial Court, had taken the

4

evidence of defendants as Nil and posted the matter for

arguments. As such, it is the case of the petitioner herein that

the defendants were not able to adduce evidence before the trial

Court and accordingly, defendants have filed application under

Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came

to be rejected by the trial Court without providing reasonable

opportunity to the defendant. Hence, the learned counsel sought

for interference in this petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify

the impugned order.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, I have carefully considered the reasons assigned by the

trial Court while rejecting IA filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, undisputedly, the defendant is a

blind lady and as such, she appointed her son-in-law Manjunath

H.K. to be her attorney to adduce evidence in the matter.

Undisputably, the suit is filed for declaratory relief and seeking

relief of permanent injunction. Though the trial Court is of the

view that the defendant is trying to drag on the proceedings with

flimsy ground, however, taking into consideration that the suit is

5

one filed for declaratory relief and also the fact that the

petitioner herein is a blind lady, so also, it is submitted that

attorney appointed by the petitioner herein (her son-in-law H.K.

Manjunath) died on account of COVID-19 pandemic, I am of the

view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this

petition is to be viewed liberally by granting time to the

defendant to adduce evidence. Accordingly it is ordered. The

impugned order dated 05^th January, 2019 is set aside. However,

it is made clear that the defendant shall co-operate for early

disposal of the suit before the trial Court. Petition is accordingly

allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn