K.GANGADHAR GOWDA Vs. MANJUNATHA BHANDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge on I.A.No.3/2013 filed under Order 3 Rule 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC and also order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2017 which was filed to recall the order passed on I.A.No.3/2013.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.2992/2005 seeking relief of declaration to declare the sale deed dtd. 4/12/2002 as null and void and not binding on plaintiff and also subsequent sale deeds and for relief of mandatory injunction directing the BDA to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff has let in ocular evidence and has produced documentary evidence.

(3.) The defendant No.6 filed an application in I.A.No.3/2013 requesting the Court to permit her to tender evidence by authorizing an agent on her behalf. The said application came to be allowed by order dtd. 31/7/2014. The present petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present applications to recall the order passed on I.A.No.3/2013. The contention of the petitioner/plaintiff before this Court is that the present GPA holder is not at all competent to tender evidence on behalf of defendant No.6. The plaintiff's main ground of objection is only when the matter was posted for defendants' evidence, for the first time, on the ground of ill health, present respondent No.6/defendant No.6 has appointed her brother-in-law who is also an Advocate as her agent and authorised him to lead evidence. The petitioner's contention is that the GPA holder at best can only give formal evidence of existing document i.e., sale deed dtd. 6/3/2006 but cannot tender ocular evidence in respect of facts over which he has no personal knowledge. Therefore, the petitioner contended that GPA holder is thoroughly incompetent to tender ocular evidence on behalf of defendant No.6. The learned Judge has rejected the applications which is under challenge.