IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD __ DATED THIS THE Sm DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 BEFORE . . TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGAN3\IA'1TI=§AI\'I"" 5 'A ' CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.111S[?.O(§ $3vV.Vv ' _ C /W CIVIL REVISION pETITION"NO. I 17.18,/_f_><§Ica-9 IN CR? 115 2009 BETWEEN: VIVEK, S /o TIMMAPPA KAWARI AGE 37 YEARS, occ: RFO. ' . R/0 MUNDGOD, DIST. KARwAIa(U.;<.; *,..}.APPELLAN'I' (BY SRI. RAJSHEKAR H. ANGADI, ADV.) I = . AND: SMT. HEiVIA',I".'J.,/AC3 VIVEEC --KA'IVARI AGE SOIVEARS, OCC:_aH'OUSEHOLD_WORK, C / 0 V. BLGAONAKAR, .IvI.,G.RoAD;' ~I NO;_1'_I'_;];8['[fiO09 ' ' I BETwEI3:I\§;g_ VIVE-Kt, SO TIMMAPPA KAWAR1 * AGE 33* YEARS, occ: RFO _' RIO' MUNDGOD, DIST. KARwAR(U.K.) = SR1. RAJSHEKAR H. ANGADI, ADV.) ....APPELi.ANT AND: SMT. HEMA, W /O VIVEK KAWARI AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O V.B.GAONAKAR, M.G.ROAD, KARWAR. (BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI, ADV.) THIS CRP IS FILED U /s 115 or TH'E"C'PC'AG_AINS;Fii'IiHE SOVRDEVR. DATED 8/10/2009 IN CIVIL MIsc.. No.17/2009 G,N'THE 'EI_LE 20.1: T§I_Ej . . .R-E_s ' . DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, REJECTINGI PETITION. _ THESE PETITIONS COMING'-OiN*~._FOR 'AD__MIssIo:Ni"'~~,THIs"DAY, C' THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: i . OR};!ER. V"-» Heard learned paif't§ezsiiiii'naI1y in respect of the petitions which arise Olilt ueornrrlori order passed by theAeI«Iea1ne:e'; Diiisftricf'--,Jiudgei "a::d"i Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, iK4:arvz_aQ1~~iin.iCiiiii,Iviieseelianeous Nos.16/2009 and 17 / 2009 the said order, the Court below hadalloiiired the ipet_i_t_ion filed by the respondent herein and
tralzsfereredVthe.__case from Civil Judge(Senior Division) at
Knmta to ~tI;–eiACourt to Karwar. Against the said order, the
resoondentiiihefore the Court below has preferred these
., revision petitions.
9%»
‘I
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Rajshekar
H. Angadi submitted that this Court by an order dated
16/04/2008 in C.P.33/2008 had allowed the petitioiiifiled
by the respondentwwife and transferred
M.C.No.92/2006 and 4/2008 to be clubbed aeefl heardiiibgibilgii’
the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division)’ Kumtar
in accordance with law. Despite the ord’erV,»_iithe’~_
respondent again moved the Qourt below’ for V
transfer of the Very same. ..casesl’frorri*I{ii;mta toliarwiar. It is,
therefore, submitted thatiithe in the petition
before this Court earlier’ and the grounds
urged 1,”beielreii5»,g.,ti;e7’3.flceiiei eeegv in the present Civil
Miscellaneous and 117/ 2009 being one and
the same, iitlzeiv below could not have allowed the
by Hth’e”‘Wife and transferred the cases from
Kdrnta to Karwaij again.
other hand learned counsel for the
resifiondentwirife submitted that the respondent has got a
h child who is a diabetic and the respondent is also pursuing
B.Ed. studies and as such transfer sought which was
allowed by the Court below cannot be held to be agains-t___law.
The impugned order of the Court below also
nut ”
..,\.t.h-at not withstanding the order passed by V’
on
in Civil Petition and further referrin;gA»to_fi r it
115 of CPC, it is submitted that
rnaintainable.
4. Having thus .heardp_bo:th_sides and perusal of
the order passed by Coi11g.rt?.:.gii;;1u”Ciifs,4i:’Petition 33/2008
which was the pp-etition””fiied’A byflgtheiiiirespondent-wife, this
Court, after. iilness and the child of
the respondent eras of the View that the case
should be 44Ii{umta Court for disposal in
accordance wit1″1«.law. The very same grounds which were
iurged the earlier C.P.33/2008 are the grounds put
iii’fori}.r.ard”§ay=_v..the””IVearned counsel for the respondent. Under
these ci.rcurnstances, I am of the View that the impugned
giorder cannot be sustained in law and apart from the above
it ‘reasonings, the submission made by the learned counsel for
-«the petitioner is that the cases have reached the stage of
cross–exaInination before the Court at Kumta and PW– who
is the husband, has been examined by clubbing
cases and at this stage, once again transferring the[‘,:”casve.,li~
back to Karwar is not warranted eV.e1’1_in the “in’te_rest=o’f.the
parties.
5. As regards the con.ten,tions”raised thee-learned * it
counsel for the respondent reie:i’riI1g,_Vgtoihthebprgiirision of
Section 115 of the c¢d§7’0f is concerned,
Section 115 sub vjclaussviilthe scope for
interference. ithiat any one of the 3
circumstances eirisits. In the instant case,
the Court ‘the notice of the order passed
by this Courtin 33/ 2008 and despite the very
sarrieigroL1ndsi’i\7~<hich were urged in the Civil Petition also
_urgedf"*~–b'efore the Court below, could not have
itrai:.sferreidg.the;ease once again from Kurrita to Karwar and
as grounds urged in this regard by the respondent's
.,,iicioI,3_nseIV'aiso does not appeal to me.
3/,'
Under the above circumstances, revision petitions are
abwahmflthemdmwfiflwChufitmbwis&fia$de3fii&e
matter shall go on before the Court at Kumta ~
parties shall co–operate in the early_d.i.sposal_–ofithe .
, e ,Safi;c:ci ,.
krnv