IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32464 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

MR. RAGHAVENDRA K S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA HEBBAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.3, GOVER ROAD COX TOWN, BENGALURU- 560 005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.D.RAGHUNATH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. R. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE D.V. RAMACHANDRA AND SMT. R. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS Digitally signed R/AT NO.141, M.M.ROAD by FRAZER TOWN, GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMA NYA BENGALURU- 560 005 GUPTA …RESPONDENT SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE KARNATAKA CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 76) IN OS NO. 8313/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-G DATED 08.10.2025., AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondent/defendant before the trial Court for the reason that this Court is not inclined to accept this petition and no adverse orders are passed against the respondent/defendant.

3. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.8313/2022.

A suit came to be filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant. After the recording of evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff and at the stage of recording the evidence of respondent/defendant, pursuant to the examination-in- chief of defendant-DW1, a memo came to be filed by respondent/defendant dated 25.06.2025. The memo reads as under.

"Even though the defendant has filed in O.S.No.7445/2024, memo dated 24.05.2025 to this Hon'ble Court stating that he will have to leave for USA seeking cooperation from the plaintiff to complete cross examination before leaving for USA, but intentionally they have not cross examined the witness and except made him to wait in the Court and since the defendant has gone to USA now it is necessary for him lead additional evidence through his GPA holder as DW.2 and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit him to do so."

4. Vide this memo, the respondent/defendant has sought leave of the court to examine his power of attorney holder as DW2 in view of the fact that he is traveling to the United States of America and he was intentionally not cross examined by the petitioner/plaintiff apart from making him wait in the Court and since now the defendant/respondent has traveled to the USA, he wants to examine his power of attorney holder as DW2.

5. This memo is allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 08.10.2025. The short point for consideration before this Court is whether the memo filed by the respondent/defendant is rightly allowed by the trial Court for permission to the defendant to examine his power of attorney holder Sri.N.Gopalakrishnan as DW2.

6. In the memo, very clearly, the respondent/defendant has stated that he has to leave for USA and hence sought cooperation from the petitioner/plaintiff to complete the cross-examination before leaving for the USA. But intentionally the plaintiff has not cross-examined the witness except to make him wait in the Court and since the respondent/defendant had to leave for USA, he is now seeking leave of the court to examine his power of attorney holder as DW2. There is no prohibition in law to permit the examination of DW2, the power of attorney holder of respondent/defendant, as one of his witnesses. It is for the petitioner/plaintiff to cross examine the witness if such evidence is adduced.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that the trial Court ought to have discharged the witness-DW1 prior to passing this order on the memo for allowing the witness- DW2 to be examined as a power of Attorney holder. Without passing such an order, the trial Court has proceeded to allow the memo and permitted the de