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 case on her behalf on the ground of ill-health and she was not in a position to give evidence. The said application having been opposed by the defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order by holding as under: “Order On IA No.VI U/o 3 rule 2 R/w Sec. 151 CPC. IA No.VI is filed by the plaintiff to appoint her lawful attorney to prosecute the case on her behalf when the case is posted for plaintiff evidence. 2. The defendants have filed objections to IA No.VI and prayed to reject the application. 3. This court by order dated 20.02.2025 has allowed the review application filed by the plaintiff in IA No.VIII. The defendants being aggrieved by the said order have approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No.9768/2025 wherein the Hon'ble High court directed this court to reconsider the IA No.VI in accordance with law. Therefore in view of the above said order this court heard arguments from both sides. 4. The points that arise for my consideration are as under, 1. Whether the plaintiff has made out grounds to allow the I.A.No. VI? 2. What order? 5. Therefore in view of the above said order this court heard arguments from both sides. 4. The points that arise for my consideration are as under, 1. Whether the plaintiff has made out grounds to allow the I.A.No. VI? 2. What order? 5. My finding on points are as under; Point No. 1: In the Affirmative; Point No.2 : As per final order for the following: REASONS 6. Point No.1:- It is the contention of the plaintiff that, she has filed present suit for the relief of partition and such other reliefs against the defendants with respect to suit schedule property. She is suffering from BP, diabetic and she age old person as such she is not able to attend the court hence, her daughter may be appointed as Special Power of attorney to prosecute the case. 7. It is the contention of the defendants that, no genuine reasons are assigned in the application to allow the same. There is no medical certificate to show that the plaintiff is suffering from any of the diseases. There is a dispute with regard to relationship is concerned hence, the examination and cross examination of the plaintiff is necessary. The issues in the present suit requires the relationship to be established by the parties and as a baste principal it requires the party to the suit to appear in the witness box and state her case on oath. The attorney can only depose for the principal in respect of such acts in pursuance of Power of attorney having rendered some acts, but she cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and which is in the personal knowledge of the principal. The essential requirement of the witness appearing and offering for cross examination can not be deviated merely on the ground of medical documents. 8. During the course of arguments the counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that, the SPA Holder of the plaintiff is having knowledge of the case and the plaintiff being the age old lady and suffering from age old aliments and she cannot appear before the court and depose on her behalf and relied upon the decision reported in (2015) ILR Karnataka 635 and Writ petition No.100190/2021 dated 31.01.2024. On the other hand the counsel for defendants argued that, there is a serious dispute with regard to relationship is concerned. On the other hand the counsel for defendants argued that, there is a serious dispute with regard to relationship is concerned. Further the plaintiff suffering from age old diseases is not a ground to allow the power of attorney holder to lead evidence on her behalf. If the principal is unable to appear before the court then commission for recording evidence can be Issued. 9. Perusal of the record it is forthcoming that, the plaintiff in the annexed affidavit has clearly stated that, the SPA Holder is the daughter of the plaintiff as such, she is having the knowledge of the case and also about the relationship. Further the documents produced along with the IA clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is suffering from BP. Diabetic and Astama, she is not able to appear before the court on all the dates of hearing. As already stated eventhough there is a dispute with regard to relationship is concerned the genealogical tree produced by the defendant before the AC Office clearly goes to show that, the respondents/defendants have admitted the relationship. The question as to the plaintiff is the family member of the defendant or not is a matter of trial as such, this court at this stage cannot go into the said aspect therefore, in view of the decision relied by the counsel for plaintiff the court cannot prevent a party from prosecuting the litigation or defending it through a power of attorney holder or a pleader. 10. Further it is held that, Power of attorney holder enters the witness box and gives evidence, whether that evidence has to be acted upon, whether it is a direct evidence or hearsay evidence, is to be decided by the court at the time of appreciation of the evidence. On the ground that the power of attorney holder has no personal knowledge of the case, he cannot be prevented from entering the witness box and from deposing. The above said decision is applicable to the case in hand. 11. Further the counsel for plaintiff relied upon order passed in Writ petition No.100190/2021 dated 31.01.2024 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held at para No.6 and 7 that, 6. It would always be for the plaintiff to lead evidence by herself or through her witnesses, including her witnesses, who could be her power of attorney, who is a recognized agent. It would always be for the plaintiff to lead evidence by herself or through her witnesses, including her witnesses, who could be her power of attorney, who is a recognized agent. In terms of order III rule 2 of CPC, the option having been provided under the CPC for leading of such evidence, the assessment of evidence can not be done at the stage of consideration of application under order III Rule 2 of CPC. It is only after the evidence is led and the witness is cross- examined, would the court be in a position to assess whether the person, who has deposed has personal knowledge or not. In the event, during the evidence, it being categorically established that the witness had no personal knowledge, then the evidence could always be rejected as hearsay at the time of passing of a judgment after consideration of the evidence. 7. It would always be available for the defendants to take up contention to establish that the witness does not have personal knowledge ,during the course of cross examination or to take up contention during the course of arguments. 12. The above decision is applicable to the case in hand. Hence, in view of the above reasons the plaintiff has made out grounds to allow I.A. No. VI. Hence. I answer point No. 1 in the Affirmative. 13. POINT NO.2: For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA No.VI filed by the plaintiff U/o 3 rule 2 R/w Sec. 151 CPC is hereby allowed. The SPA holder of the plaintiff is permitted to lead evidence on behalf of plaintiff. No order as to costs. Call on 19.09.2025” 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly come to the correct conclusion by allowing I.A.No.VI to appoint the daughter / SPA to prosecute the case on her behalf including contesting evidence. It is also pertinent to note that it will always be open for the petitioner to cross-examine the daughter/SPA holder and draw inference/adverse inference against the petitioner for remaining absent and not appearing before the Trial Court. It is also relevant to state that the petitioner would also be entitled to contest the proceedings and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 if the respondent No.1 – plaintiff is permitted to prosecute the suit. It is also relevant to state that the petitioner would also be entitled to contest the proceedings and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 if the respondent No.1 – plaintiff is permitted to prosecute the suit. Therefore, the appointment of SPA holder as directed in the impugned order which cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity and occasioned failure of justice warranting interference of this Court in the present petition in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Ors Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423 , K.P. Natarajan and Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477 . 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petition may be disposed of without interfering with the impugned order and by issuing certain directions. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners - defendant Nos.1 and 2 to contest the suit by all means and cross examine the daughter /SPA holder of the plaintiff on all aspects including the request the Trial Court to draw inference/adverse inference against the petitioner for not attending before the Trial Court.