Karnataka High Court
Shri Prabhakar S/O Baburao Naik vs Shri Baburao S/O Appa Naik on 26 February, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4543
WP No. 100142 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.100142 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI PRABHAKAR,
S/O BABURAO NAIK,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DEVANAKATTI,
TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI BABURAO,
S/O APPA NAIK,
AGE: 78 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DEVANAKATTI,
TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
2. SHRI SHRIKANTH,
KATTIMANI
S/O BABURAO NAIK,
Digitally signed by
AGE: 53 YEARS,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DEVANAKATTI,
TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI CHIDANAND,
S/O BABURAO NAIK,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DEVANAKATTI,
TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4543
WP No. 100142 of 2024
4. SMT. SHARADHA,
W/O DUNDAPPA UDAGATTI,
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HALLUR, TQ: MUDALAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 317.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHETAN B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 TO R3 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN MISC.NO.35/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-
E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
"To quash the impugned order dated 23.08.2023
passed by the Principal District Judge, Belgavi in
Misc.No.35/2023 vide Annexure-E and etc."
2. Sri Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that petitioner was plaintiff in O.S.no.239/2020
pending on file of Senior Civil Judge, Raibag, wherein he was
seeking for relief of partition and separate possession in
respect of property bearing RS.no.28/2 measuring 4 acres 29
guntas situated at Devanakatti village, Raibag Taluk. It was
submitted that during pendency of said suit, respondent no.1,
who was defendant no.1 in petitioner's suit had filed another
suit in O.S.no.388/2021 before Principal Civil Judge, Raibag
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4543
against present respondent no.4 seeking for relief of
declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of
same suit property. It was submitted that present respondent
no.4 had filed Miscellaneous Petition no.35/2023 before
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi against present
respondent no.1 under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for transfer of O.S.no.388/2021 to court trying
O.S.no.239/2020. It was submitted that petitioner herein was
not arrayed as party to miscellaneous petition and in his
absence impugned order at Annexure-E is passed transferring
O.S.no.388/2021 pending on file of Principal Civil Judge,
Raibag to Senior Civil Judge, Raibag for trial with
O.S.no.239/2020. It was submitted that said order is cryptic
without any reasons and also in violation of principles of
natural justice insofar as petitioner is concerned and
therefore, seeks for quashing same.
3. On other hand, Sri Chetan B. Patil, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.4 sought to oppose writ petition.
It was submitted that all parties in O.S.no.388/2021 were
parties in O.S.no.239/2020 and both were regarding same suit
property. It was further submitted that relief of declaration
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4543
sought in O.S.no.388/2021 would have a direct bearing upon
relief sought in O.S.no.239/2020 and to avoid conflicting
decrees, transfer was necessary. It was submitted that
grounds urged by petitioner were highly technical and
therefore sought for dismissal of writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
record.
5. From above, it is seen that under impugned order,
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belagvi has
ordered for transfer of suit without detailed reasoning. But,
fact of matter is that both suits are regarding same subject
matter, wherein all parties in O.S.no.388/2021 were parties in
O.S.no.239/2020 and transfer would avoid conflicting
judgments. In that light of matter, petitioner's objections
would be hyper technical. Hence, I do not see any merits in
writ petition and same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GRD
