Karnataka High Court
Shivashankargouda vs Anuradha on 16 March, 2018
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S. Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
C.R.P. NO.100007 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. SHIVASHANKARGOUDA
S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:66 YEARSR, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O MANTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581104.
2. PUSHPA W/O SHIVASHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:51 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURIST,
R/O MANTAGI VILLAGE, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581104.
..... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S N BANAKAR, ADV.)
AND
1. ANURADHA
W/O JAGADISHGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:51 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURIST AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MANTAGI VILLAGE, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581104.
2. JAGADISHGOUDA
2
S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: MANTAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
3. SMT.SUDHA
W/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MANTAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
4. BASALINGANAGOUDA
S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: BANK EMKPLOYEE AND
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: MANTAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
5. SMT.MUDDAVVA @ FAKKIRAVVA
W/O BASAPPA AVALAKKI,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MANTAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
6. SMT.KAREVVA
W/O FAKKIRAPPA NEELANNANAVAR,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MANTAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR &
SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVs. FOR R-1 TO R-4
R-5 & 6 SERVIVED)
3
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED:10.01.2017 PASSED IN CIVIL
MISC.NO.23/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CPC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2017, made by learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri whereby three cases between the same parties i.e., O.S.Nos.213/2010, 55/2014 and 343/2015 are ordered to be transferred from the file of learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Hangal to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Hangal for trial by clubbing the same.
2. The counsel for the petitioners lays a challenge to this order principally on two grounds viz. the power to transfer the case from one Court to another does not include the power to club the transferred cases for being tried by the transferee Court inasmuch as clubbing of the 4 cases is a judicial decision to be taken by the trial Court whereas the transfer of cases from one Court to another is not so much judicial in nature. There is a lot of force in this submission.
3. The second ground urged by the counsel for the revision petitioners is that though the parties in these three cases are the same and the property which is being litigated upon is also the same, still the nature of evidence to be led in a suit for declaration & injunction differs the nature and quality of evidence to be led in a suit for partition & separate possession, as also from a suit for bare injunction. There is force in this argument also.
4. The counsel for the respondents submits that the power to transfer the cases from one Court to another also involves the exercise of judicial power inasmuch as the transferee Court will look into the nature of the cases, the relief sought for and the subject matter of lis. The Court which transferred the case is higher in hierarchy 5 than the transferee Court and therefore, the power exercised by the said Court also involves the elements of judicial power.
5. The counsel for the respondents next contended that irrespective of the power of the transferring Court to club the transferred cases, there is already clubbing of the cases which can be looked at by the transferee Court itself. He cites the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement reported in 2004 (3) SCC 85 relevant para 12 of the judgment reads as under:
12. The two suits ought not to be tried separately. Once the suit at Rewa has reached the court at Visakhapatnam, the two suits shall be consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision. The trial court may frame consolidated issues. The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent powers of the court flowing from Section 151 6 CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the civil court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decision.
6. I have considered the rival contentions advanced at the Bar. This case does not merit consideration of the pure question of law as to existence of power to club the cases inasmuch as the transfer of these cases from one Court to another is acquiesced by the parties and going by the law declared by the Apex Court referred to above, it is the trial Court i.e., the transferee Court which should take the call as to whether those cases merit clubbing or not, in exercise of its inherent power. 7
6A. Therefore, liberty is reserved to the transferee Court on the application of the revision petitioners herein to decide whether the clubbing should continue or the clubbed cases should be separated (declubbed) from each other. If such an application is filed by the revision petitioner herein within three weeks seeking separating of the clubbed cases from each other, the trial Court shall decide the said application within two weeks. The trial Court shall decide the same after hearing the other side and also considering the objections, if any, within next two weeks therefrom.
7. The impugned order is left undisturbed subject to what is stated above. The petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE Naa