IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN GALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE S.N5SATYANA"R AY;m\TA
C.R.P.NO. 259 OF 2005 '
BETWEEN:
Sri M.Rarnakrishnappa,
S / 0 Muniyappa,
45 years, Agriculturist,
R/0 Thondala Village,'
Holur I-Iobli, _ .4 ' '
K01arTaluk-- 563 , . ..Petitioner
{By Sri J.G.Chaifi_;1r;;[
AND:
1. Smt.ChoWdVaInma..V_." f
W/0 Late Ven.}_:atappa,Q_ "
75 yeafns; _ Z " "
V Sr111r.,1\/£1 Iriéi/efilgatamma,
W/.0 L3.§:€v.V€I1'}i§5['t;appa,
65 .y'e-"arsp ,
-. - .. ._ D./0 Late V1.-ankatappa,
V" ' - y:=:_.ars["
' ' ' V EV'/'éniiatarathna,
Late Venkatappa,
"~._Agec1 32 years.
W
R)
5. Chinnappa,
S/0 Late Munivenkatappa,
70 years.
All are agriculturists
and r/ 0 Thondala village,
I-Iolur I-Iobli.
K01arTa1uk. V «. it
This CRP filed 11/5 115 of C'i?:C~..agaii1st. thej'v0fii'ef"deLted " V
31.10.2009 passed in Mis;0.N0.9iA7._./sx2OO9.._Vnon 't'he__AfiVié of the
Principal District Judge, K0101? rej_ectiI1.g'*vti1e"petition filed u/s
24 of CPC for transferof theispiiit, A 2 2 V
This CRP for the Court" made
the fo110wing:¥"" - M
'rm :5, R
This revieiaifi is:'..'i'filed challenging the common
Qrcieif 1_.10'.200_.9....passed in Misc.N0s.37, 38 and
0.0 the Principai District Judge, Kolar.
2} .'TAI'1e is aggrieved by the order passed in
.j'_"Mi4Se._.N0.37/éG_O9 which was filed by him seeking transfer of
'e.0iLQ,s;Nee.2200/2008 on the file of the cm; Judge {Jr.Dn.), Kolar,
'W
to the Court where O.S.No.315/2008 and O.S.No.840/2.008
are pending.
3. It is the case of the petitioner herein..tyh'at' l
in O.S.No.220/2008 is filed by him szeekingft decia;rattio:1i.jplalnd7
permanent injunction in respecty.'of__im1noyable p'r'o'perty
to have been bequeathed to him .paternal_grandfather
late Munivenkatappa. It also that the said
property is subject m.atter:,ofv:.partiti:on'xiiiV§S';No.3l5/2008
and also in FDP._ to the judgment
and decree Another suit in
the correctness of the
said judgment the three original suits and
311$/).g_vin subject is the property
betji-,1e'ath'edgAto"the-petitioner by his paternal grandfather. It is
Case. of the petitioner that any order passed in any one of
_Vu_gthose_gpsuits adversely affect his right in the suit filed by
Therefore, prays that all the three suits and FDP
W
proceedings should be tried by the same Court. In this
background the aforesaid three misc. petitions were
4. Misc.No.3'7/ 2009 was fi1ed by the .
Misc.No.38/ 2009 was filed by one Laksh_man'na" t" it
o.s.No.84o/2008 and Misc.No.39/20091'_'_'wasA'"fiie{i'
petitioner herein along with his is * it
the case of petitioner that the Principal ilistrict' Kolar
after hearing all the partiesttitdirectedithatcevvither aforesaid three
suits be Withdrawr1_fron1_ in which they
are pending before the Court of the
I Add}. CiVii\,Ju--dgeVV{;'E3f;l§ri)y'4Ko_1'ar,' for disposal in accordance
with law by clubbing thetétsaiciithree suits separately from FD?
N0-45/
*5;"B.eiIig"aggrieVed by this, the petitioner has filed this
Id"gpetition.challeriéijnigythe order in so far as clubbing the three
snits'g_and directing that the FD? should be tried
contrary to the interest of the petitioner and
V .
6. The respondents who are the
O.S.No.220/2008 and 840/2008 and also C}.\’fiiN,”0′:.-:V3~Vv]v.;l’-‘A.’i::/:2r_0£’>v8!.’
have entered appearance and supported
Principal District Judge, Kolar.
7. Heard the counsel for It} is seen
that the withdrawal of o.’sd.dINos}22t0t,k200s’,~0 .0840/2008 and
315/2008 from the fi};eV_.of th’e”C.ivi1V ;,r_t-tag; Kolar and
posting them to Judge [Sr:Dn.), Kolar is not
objected ‘ proceedings. The
objection of t’h_e” petitiohderV_”h.er’e:i’n is only to the extent of
disposal ofthe separateiy without clubbing it with FDP
‘perusaimof the common order passed by the
triai dCou’1ft1 i11t°’t.h_e f.}tfI5resaid three Misc. petitions, it is seen
that the”‘1*easaonirig given by the court below in withdrawing
suits and posting them to the Court of the Civil
and to club them together is in order.
‘Mt
8. Further the order of the Court below in directing
FDP No.45/ 2007 to be tried separately is also in order
reasons that the rights of each of the parties to
have to be decided separately and independentiy:iii,
suits, based on that the final decree proceredtirigs-.
up to decide about the shares be aliotted of
them. Insofar as FDP No.45/ithefirights of
the parties is already in the said
proceedings is apportionmentiiofitshare..purs1:i’?;nt to the decree
passed in ‘rights of the parties are
decided them along with FDP
N0.45/ proceedings to decide original suit and FD?
not Therefore, the order of the court
below of original suits separately and
Vordering””—theiI’1’Vto be tried separately from that of FDP
just and proper. There is no irregularity and
the said order, which requires interference by this
‘V ‘ Courtiiand hence, there is no merit in this revision petition.
‘Wu
9. Accordingly, the revision petition is ‘
an observation that the Civil Judge v~[S’1″;-Dn.)5_,:
that FDP No.45/2007 shall dispose “said film,
proceedings subject to the outi of 2vj008”
and 315/2008, 840/2008,