IN THE HIGH COURT OF IA:I\:?N;A' '
CIVIL REVISION .PETIT}ON P$O:'iQ50 OEEOOS
SHRI SANJAY ES CRATE»
AGE : MAJOR, OCC: AGRIC_LIL'"I'UREȤ '
R /O MARI_HA.L.V,V'TA11_5;_ S5 DIST: BELQAUM
I' :-: ' _ PETITIONER
(By Sri G.B"SHASTRYf,
AND
_1. v_"Ei<HR_i:SHIVAAIWIGQUDA S /O DODDAGOUDA PATIL
'I\J
_ 'AGE:jMAJI_OR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
" R/O__MA'F.'_I1-EAL
._«TALi f&,DIST:~v"BELGAUM
-SMT.» MALLAVVA W /O RUDRAPPA GURUVANNAVAR
AGE':.75 YEARS
OCC.;__ HOUSE HOLD 82; AGRICULTURE
" 'R/O MARIHAL
- __'I'_AL: 82; DIST: BELGAUM
FAKKIRAVVA @ BASAVANNI
J
f\J
W/O BHIMAGOUDA HOSAMAM
AGE: 60 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O MARIHAL
TAL: 85 DIST: BELGAUM
SMT. SARITA W/O CHANNAPPA._BOLASH};TTY =
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOU's.EROL1)_wORR.'
R/O MUCHANDI
TAL: BELGAUM
SMT. ROOPA w/O RAMELHS. ,N"1Ry'..AN1
AGE: MAJOR, OCC 5 ' H0-US. EH0 LO W0 R-K
R /O AKKITANGERHAL, .TQ:__G:OI»{AKV
DIST: BELGAIJM -
SMT. A1m?A =-JV,/«sf) 'SCM'AI\§iN'Gw..'HOSA£\/INI
AGE: A'1AJO'R,'Occ: 'HOUSEHOLD WORK
R /O YALIJAP"UR,V"1'Q't' HUKKERIP
DIST'f"BELGAUi:'i»/I' "
SMT; vs}UNANDA*§v,.IsETf: B,JELGA"UM----..A =
sHRI"EAsAv_ARAJ S/O RUDRAPPA GURUVANNAVAR
. .J_A-AGE3'-~55 Y"EA~Rs
= A 'OCC5 AGRFCULTURE
»--.R/OMARIHAL
TALE' .& DIST: BELGAUM
A = __§HRI SUBHASH S /O RUDRAPPA GURUVANNAVAR
AGE: 51 YEARS
% OCC: AGRICULTURE
E
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMIssiiQ1iI'__'_ThIis.'
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Q_E§_I2.,.EB 0 >
The petitioner is before this Courts
dt. 16.10.2008. By the said,e'i--t1ei~ the.V_trialV cevitiiitiheeeiothe
to the conclusion that it has theiijuirie-dictiori toienteirtairi the
suit in as. Ne.499/2005*-i.
2. The faicts iariex'I1ecessary for disposal
of the present "tih'eidres"pionder1t Nos. 1 Lo 11
herein / 2006. The petitioner
herein in the said suit. The second
defendant raised ia'v«.conte'n"tion that the value of the suit
.---.ascheciitlet__ipi'Qpert5f'being more than Rs.50,000/--, the civil
does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the
suit.' "--i'rhe'pihih_ttitfs opposed the said contention. The trial
«Vcourtiiafterw considering the rival contentions has come to the
:concl"iizsion that from the materials available on record the
of the suit land as on the date of the suit was beyond
pecuniary jurisdiction i.e., more than Rs.50,000/-- .
l
'rc
However, the Court below has thereafter
consider the provisions of the Karnataka and
Suits Valuation Act and also keepingmin'viewith-e
made to Sec. 17 of the Civil Courts Court 'hia'vei'=.}
jurisdiction since the value oi"'--vther.bsubieethirnattéeriilthias heen
enhanced. The second..defendan£_:i*isi"thereiore"beiore this
Court. The respondentsiiiiaveiit'iled::'th:eir. statement
to this petition. V V C it it
3.v ____ for the parties and
penised-the the valuation of the property
the trial the conclusion that it was
beyond ” the pecuniary. jurisdiction, namely more than
on the date of the filing of the suit.
iii’Fhierefoire,:iit-he question for consideration in the present
it petition wotild’ have been with regard to the effect of the
till’-‘4«___iamendrnen’t to the Civil Courts Act and as to whether in that
A .CQA1’1f€_XAi.-C the suit was entertainable. However, considering the
Viinnature of contention put forth in the objection statement
l
–v
6
filed to this petition, I am of the View that a-
question need not be gone into in this petition, since the _
respondents though have sought to i_iiustify thegorder p_a’s’sed’.
by the trial Court have also indiciateidithat I”1aii\I’.–ei”1’»2ioi’–
objection to receive back theéjgint to the
Court of Civil Judge (Sr..Dn.)_.iBeil}§fuafi:i._.’ Noiidoubit in this
regard in the objection’ fithe”‘»i.respondents have
contended thatflpthere is pending
between the a.ndif_’thVeiireispondents in 0.55.
No. 142 Ijudg_ei(Sr.Dn.) Belgaum and it
is also stated suits are to be clubbed and
tried together. i learned counsel for the
petitioner would ‘contend that clubbing cannot be permitted
ii i’at«th’isi.st-ageii’ since thieiiplaintiffs in OS. No.l42/2002 would
thc.i:f”Sa)’iiinVVt:l’1e matter if such clubbing is sought before
the trial Couibtiiand therefore no orders be passed in this
“regard. ”
J:
4. In the light of What has been contendede
as permitting the respondents herein namely thle._V:plaintiffsi’ini C
0.8. 910.499/2006 to receive _back:’thie”pla_int
to the Court of the Civil judge (Srl§ff)’_n;’).V_iBeIgau’rAr’i-
absolutely no difficulty, sineeeiallgcoinplieatiorislleould be
avoided and suit can be ltlh.e_fiI Adidl’.’~Ci’\lril Judge
(Sr.Dn.) Belgaunri. }”ler1le’e’,l the order dt.
16.10.2008 pas4g¢.¢1.__ b,y:,*{he.[gi~f§ieiIpe1Judge (Jr.Dn.)
Belgaum petition stands
modified. ____ is directed to order
for return of ‘No.499/2006 to the plaintiffs
to enableithem. same before the 1 Addl. Civil
Judge§'{“Sr,Dn.l) With regard to the clubbing as
ilpra3fé’d. lithe said question is left open and if the
irespondenitsildets-ire clubbing, it is open for them to exercise
their-.opti_o’n law as contemplated under See.24 of the Civil
– ‘«4___lProcedu.re__Code and in that regard all questions are left open
begoonsidered by the Court below.
J»
,1
In terms of the above the petition StarI.._Ci_S. _
disposed of . No order as to costs.
Since, CRP has been Vdispes_e€1’_ . of, n .
Cx/1.101132/2009is also disposed ¢ra.§”mfruc£uags;V..e
BNS