Karnataka High Court
Tatyarao S/O Late Laxmanrao vs Vithal Rao And Ors on 28 February, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
CIVIL PETITION No.200063/2019
Between:
Tatyarao S/o Late Laxmanrao,
Aged about 52 Years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Rajnal Village,
Tq. and Dist. Bidar.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Sanjeevkumar C. Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. Vithal Rao S/o Late Laxmanrao,
Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Rajnal Village,
Tq. and Dist. Bidar-585 401.
2. Apparao S/o Late Laxmanrao,
Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Rajnal Village,
Tq. and Dist. Bidar-585401.
3. Chandrakanth S/o Late Laxmanrao,
Aged about 49 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Rajnal Village,
Tq. and Dist. Bidar-585 401.
2
4. Sheshabai W/o Late Laxmanrao,
Aged about 83 Years, Occ: Household,
R/o Rajnal Village
Tq. and Dist. Bidar-585 401.
5. Godavaribai W/o Maruthirao,
D/o Late Laxmanrao,
Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Household,
R/o Rajnal Village,
Tq. and Dist. Bidar-584 101.
6. Radhabai W/o Machender
D/o Late Laxmanrao,
Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Household,
R/o Hyderabad (H.No.Plot No.23
Tent House Door No.011,
Rainbow, HMT Road,
Hyderabad-500 037.
... Respondents
(By Sri Ravi B. Patil, Advocate for R1;
By Sri Amresh S. Roja, Advocate for R2;
R3 to R6 are served)
This Civil Petition is filed under 24 (1)(B) of Code of
Civil Procedure praying to withdraw/transfer
R.A.No.11/2019, pending on the file of Principal District
Judge, Bidar and same may be heard along with
R.F.A.No.200019/2019 pending before this Court.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court made the following:-
3
ORDER
Petitioner has filed petition under Section 24(1)(B)
of Code of Civil Procedure praying to withdraw
R.A.No.11/2019 pending on the file of Principal District
Judge, Bidar and to hear the same along with RFA
No.200019/2019 pending before this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and
2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, in order to avoid conflicting decision, it is
necessary that both the appeals have to be heard by the
same Court. In view of the same, he prays to allow the
petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 strongly opposes the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
6. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 filed
suit in O.S.No.109/2012 seeking relief of declaration.
Respondent No.2 valued the subject matter of the suit
property at Rs.28,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 filed suit
in O.S.No.145/2016 for the relief of partition and
separate possession and valued the suit property at
Rs.6,00,000/- before the trial Court. The trial Court
clubbed both the suits, recorded common evidence and
thereafter common judgment came to be passed vide
Annexure-A. The petitioner aggrieved by the common
judgment passed in the aforesaid suits preferred
R.A.No.11/2019 before the Principal District Judge, Bidar
and preferred RFA No.200019/2019 before this Court.
7. When the trial Court has recorded evidence
in common and passed common judgment, both the
appeals have to be heard by the same Court in order to
avoid conflicting decision. In view of the same, the
petitioner has made out a ground to allow the petition.
8. In view of the above discussion, petition is
allowed. R.A.No.11/2019 pending on the file of Principal
District Judge, Bidar is withdrawn and the same is
transferred to this Court.
9. Registry is directed to assign number to the
said appeal and the same be listed along with RFA
No.200019/2019.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
