This appeal is filed u/S 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC r/W Sec._..i04 of
CPC against the order dated 17.12.2004 passed on LA. No.WI7i.n
No. 1/2004 on the file of the District Judge, Haveri. ..
This appeal coming on for final hearing this
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT.'
1. The instant appeal arising out ordeli is
in M.C. No. 1/2004 on the file of Judge,.._I71at5'eri, dated
17.12.2004.
2. The only iicounsel appearing for
appeliant at the Judge has committed
an error in di°s.;nissiingi'the:-filed by the petitioner regarding
maintainabilityiof..i_appiiciat'ici;1v141 Rule 5 r/W Sec. :51 of CPC.
The said iifil'edv...b.y«'the appellant herein had come up for
coris.iderati--o1_i the learned District Judge on 17.12.2004.
after hearing both the sides dismissed the
« -.i.i.i'_application fi'1ed1- by the appellant herein. Be that as it may, the said
ii'v..4ii'-ciaseihad .coi:'ne up for consideration before this Court on 27.01.2005
Court dismissed the appeai at the admission stage. Thereafter
%/
the petitioner has filed a Review Petition No. 338/05 in M.F.A. No.
506/05. The said matter had come up for consideration befo1"e this
Court on 12.08.2005. This Court after hearing both
the Review Petition and set aside the order dated.«-2e.7}QVVIi.:2Q0.S. ..
apparent mistake has been crept in the order ,vievvffo_f
Notification issued in the month 5_f'«-Noveinber' iiviherein
Registry of this Court has envisaged po_vv'er_of the .Distr,ictVJii1dge to be
exercised under the Special lV§arri.age vvvith the Court of
Civil Iudges. The rnaLfter__wa;s'iire'st'orcd"t;ore__consideration on merits.
Having regard re'l°_erredV.above the instant appeal
is filed beingeaggrievedibyitlieliirtpugned order passed on LA. No. 1 in
M.C. No I/2004l"onlthe learned District Jude, Haveri.
heard thelmlearned counsel appearing for appellant.
Learned"'iooun'se'l_~,fori.i':;appellant at the outset submitted that, the order
irnpugned""pas--sed"oin LA. No. i, is apparent on the face of the order.
.1 -Learinedii District Judge has committed an error in dismissing the
iii'"Cf-..appl'iclatiorii filed by the petitioner u/O vii Rule 10 CPC. re
%/
substantiate his submission he placed reliance on the Notification
issued by the Registry of High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore,____in the
month of November 1978 contending that power has been ftpiothe
jurisdictional Civil Eudge Courts now it is called as
Dn.) Court in respect to the Civil Judg'e"m(S'r'.«
Therefore he submitted that the impugned order'passedglbylptlie
District Judge is liable to be set aside.
4. As against this, learned for respondent to
substantiate the impugned order’_passedl__lby the.V.lear_r_1ed District Judge
contended that; lieaméfa ilnuclonsonance with the relevant
provisions of ‘Hindu passed the order impugned.
Therefore interference byrtitisilfiourt does not call for.
5.V’V’-~Ar”t.:VV’€3li -Vha’ve:”‘h:evard–.the learned counsel appearing for both the
lVils’–t.,.p.arties’Candi perused the order impugned passed by the
-.l.C.ifl§ear_ne,d Dist1’icti’iJudge and the order passed by this Court in R.P. No.
C passed on 12.08.2005. It is manifest on the face ofthe order
llthat:.fh_i_sl Court has set aside the order passed earlier dated 27.01.2005
i_.
V
dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the appellant
has filed a Review Petition. The Review Petition was allowed,ar1.dthVe
J’;
earlier order dated 27.01.2005 was set aside holding _
the notification issued in the month of November 1978″ii”nie’};ercis’eVof ii ”
power sub Section 1 of Section 28 of the Civil’
1964 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1964) andin”Snpersession:o.f existing 1 ‘
orders on the subject the High.C’o._t_1rt is pileasedito invest
the power of a DistrictCourt or the Officers
Presiding over the Civiil;1j;1t1Vdge-.’ps in’i–the___State under the Acts
mentioned therein withi1:i,,theiit”respective territorial jurisdiction.
1) The Indiari Divoieéiiiagt,1_85§,. 0
ii) The lndianslsunaciy Act, »-1,912, and
iii) The Special ‘Marriages ‘/-kcit’, 1954.
‘ .relie’f forii”consideration in this appeal is Special Marriages
0 ii Act, Thipsiaspect of the matter has not been considered that to I
*«..ii_j’;whi’1e passingthe order strictly in consonance with the notification
11.11.1978, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore by the
‘Reg,istiar. Therefore we are of the considered view the impugned
//2
order passed on I/A. No. I in M.C. No. 1/2004 on the file of District
Judge, Haveri, cannot be sustainable. Hence it is set aside.
7. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed ifriipart.
Impugned order passed on LA. No. I in M.C. No. 1/2004 on.
District Judge, Haveri, is set aside. Matter is remitted ..t_:o~.th’e::le4an:ed ~ ..
District Judge to reconsider the matter afresh andivtotpass”appropriate
order in the light of the observationrnadell’in this
District Judge is directed to dispose 0f_tlie._matter as”exped.i:tiously as
possible after affording of hearing to
respective parties keeping ifnlvie’w.ithe matter was pending between the
parties for adjudication
JUDGE