Karnataka High Court
Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt vs Sri. Uttaradi Mutt on 11 July, 2014
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
CIVIL PETITION NO.100047/2014
BETWEEN
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT,
BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI,
H.H.SRI.SUBUDHENDRA TEERTHA SWAMIJI,
SRI.RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT,
MANTRALAYA, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDRA PRADESH,
REP. BY APTHA KARYADARSHI,
S.N.SUYAMINDRA ACHAR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.S.BAWAKHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI.UTTARADI MUTT,
BY ITS PEETADHIPATHI,
SRI SATYATMA TEERTHA SWAMIJI,
REP. BY GPA HOLDER,
SRI.AYODHYA RAMACHAR ADVOCATE,
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT,
GANGAVATHI, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.HARSH DESAI & SMT.VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATES)
:2:
THIS CIVIL PETITON IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF
CPC., PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE RA NO.14/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GANGAVATHI TO NEIGHBOURING
DISTRICTS OF BELLARY OR RAICHUR, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this Civil Petition under Section 24 of the CPC praying to transfer of R.A.No.14/2011 which is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi to the neighboring districts of Bellary or Raichur.
2. The suit of the respondent in O.S.No.74/2010 has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gangavathi. The respondent has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.14/2011. It is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi.
3. It is stated, the respondent organized a ceremony commencing from 28.04.2014 to 02.05.2014 to install the idol of "SHRI MUKHYA PRANADEVARU" at :3: Poornaprajnya Layout, Gangavathi. The Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi, before whom the case is pending has actively participated in the ceremony organized by the respondent- Mutt. The participation of the Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi exhibited strong affinity of the Presiding Officer towards the respondent-Mutt.
4. It is stated, the petitioner in anticipation that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi, may get influenced by the respondent-Mutt's beliefs and ideologies filed an application seeking adjournment of hearing in R.A.No.14/2011. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi in the order dated 03.06.2014 was pleased to express that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi belongs to the sect of Uttaradi Mutt and thereby recused to hear the arguments in the appeal. In the order dated 07.06.2014, the learned Senior Civil Judge misrepresented stating that the ceremony was organized by both the mutt's and therefore, she attended the ceremony.
:4:
5. It is stated, the Principal District Judge, Koppal is also from the sect of Uttaradi Mutt. Therefore, the petitioner is filing this petition before this Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi is proceeding with the appeal with interest and cloud casted on impartiality. Therefore, the appeal may be transferred to the neighboring districts of Bellary or Raichur.
6. The respondent has filed objections by way of counter affidavit of Sri.R.S.Kembhavi. In the counter affidavit, it is stated, O.S.No.121/92 (old) was filed before the Munsiff, Gagnavathi by the respondent. It was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Koppal and it was renumbered as O.S.No.193/92. On further transfer from the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Koppal to the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gangavathi, it was numbered as O.S.No.74/2010. The Suit was dismissed on 18.06.2011. Thereafter, the respondent has filed an appeal in R.A.No.14/2011. It is stated, in MFA No.21690/2013, there :5: is a direction by this Court to dispose of the appeal within six months. The present Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gangavathi has taken charge during second week of February 2014. This Court by its order dated 20.02.2014 has extended the time for disposal of the appeal by four months.
7. It is stated, the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gangavathi by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties fixed the date of hearing as 02.06.2014. On 02.06.2014 the appellant has commenced the arguments. The case was posted to 03.06.2014 for further arguments. On 03.06.2014 when the case was called, the petitioner presented a memo seeking adjournment on the ground that the petitioner is moving for transfer of the appeal as the petitioner apprehends that he may not get the justice from the Court. When the Presiding Officer informed the counsel that the Court would not act on the memo, necessary application has been filed supported by the memorandum of facts stating that the petitioner has reason to apprehend :6: that it will not get the justice for the reasons to be mentioned in the transfer petition. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 07.06.2014.
8. On 07.06.2014, when the cased was called Sri.N.Prahalad Rao, Senior Advocate for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking extension of time to file the transfer petition and has prayed for adjournment of the appeal on the ground that between 29.04.2014 to 02.05.2014 when Peetadhipathi of the appellant-Mutt visited Gangavathi, the Presiding Officer of the Court met the appellant- Peetadhipathi, as such the petitioner apprehends that he may not get justice from the Court. The application was opposed by the respondent. However, the case was adjourned to 16.06.2014.
9. It is stated, the function for installation and consecration of the Idol of "Sri.Mukhya Pranadevaru"
(Hanumantha Devaru) at Poornaprajnya Layout, :7: Gangavathi was organised and celebrated by Sri.Sathyatma Theertha, Shri Pandagalavara Swagatha Samithi, Gangavathi on 02.05.2014 and few other religious discourses and pooja were arranged between 29.04.2014 to 02.05.2014. It is denied that the Presiding Officer actively participated in the ceremony organized by the respondent-
Mutt. It is stated, the Welcome Committee consists of 38 responsible and respected persons of Gangavathi. Out of that 16 persons are followers of Sri.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, 17 persons are followers of Sri.Uttaradhi Mutt and others are followers of Sri.Shankar Mutt. The Presiding Officer was invited to the function by Sri.Nagaraj, the President and the Senior Advocate, Gangavathi Bar, Senior Advocates - Sri.Ayodhya Ramachar, Sri.Navali Prahalad Rao and Sri.Sharad Dandin. The Presiding Officer after seeking advice from the superior officer has attended the function. The Presiding Officer was received at the function by Senior Advocate Sri.Navali Prahalad Rao and Sri.Sharad :8: Dandin. They took the Presiding Officer to Sri.Satyathma Theertha Swamiji publicly and in open who gave Mantrakshata to the Presiding Officer and her family. Later they took Theertha Prasada along with the general public.
The allegation that the Presiding Officer has actively participated in the function is false and baseless. It is stated, the averments in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the transfer petition are misstatement of facts.
10. Further it is stated, the order dated 03.06.2014 does not reflect that the learned Presiding Officer has recused herself from hearing the appeal. In the order dated 07.06.2014 the Presiding Officer has narrated the sequence of events. The order dated 03.06.2014 and 07.06.2014 clearly indicate that the Presiding Officer is un-baised and there is no reason to apprehend that the petitioner will not get justice at the hands of the present Presiding Officer. Further, it is stated that Sri.Suyamindrachar, who has filed the affidavit in support of the transfer petition was not at all :9: present. He was not aware of any of the proceedings personally. The averments in the petition are false, frivolous and fertile imagination. Therefore, the transfer petition may be dismissed.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Presiding Officer has received the blessings of the Swamiji of the respondent-Mutt and therefore, the petitioner apprehends that the petitioner may not get justice at the hands of the present Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer herself has expressed discomfort to continue with the case. She should have recused from the case. The learned Judge is in a haste to dispose of the matter. When the ceremony was exclusively organized by respondent-Mutt, the learned Judge has stated in the order that the ceremony was organized by both the Mutts which is absolutely false. The learned Judge is proceeding against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 513 : 10 : that justice should not only be done but also must seen to have been done. The huge number of devotees of the petitioner-mutt apprehend that they may not get justice at the hands of the present Presiding Officer. Therefore, the case may be transferred to the neighboring districts of Bellary or Raichur.
12. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the transfer petition is tainted with malafides. In the past also, at the crucial stages, the petitioner had sought for transfer of the case. The apprehension must be reasonable. The suit is between two parties and it is for injunction. The intention of the petitioner is to drag on the proceedings. There are no allegations of bias against the Presiding Officer. He also submitted that the arguments were completed during March 2013 itself. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer was changed. He was also transferred. Subsequently, the present Presiding Officer has taken charge during February 2014. : 11 : The arguments commenced on 2nd June 2014. Thereafter, on 03.06.2014 a request was made to adjourn the case on the ground that the petitioner apprehends that they may not get justice at the hands of the present Presiding Officer for the reason that she has actively participated in the function organized by the Uttaradi Mutt. In fact, the function was not organized by the Uttaradi mutt alone. The Welcome Committee consists of devotees of petitioner's mutt, devotees of respondents' mutt and also the devotees of Shankar Mutt. Just like the Presiding Officer was invited, various other authorities were also invited for the function. The Presiding Officer has not played any active role in the function. Therefore, there is no basis for the apprehension that the petitioner may not get justice at the hands of the present Presiding Officer. The apprehension must be reasonable and bonafide. Honesty, integrity and credibility of the Presiding Officer is not in doubt at all. Mere attending a function cannot be a ground to transfer the case. : 12 : Therefore, the petition may be dismissed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following decisions:
i) AIR 1979 MADHYA PRADESH 50;
ii) AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 39;
iii) AIR 2000 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 238;
iv) AIR 2003 ANDHRA PRADESH 448; AND
v) (2008) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 659.
13. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The point that arise for my consideration is:
• Whether the appeal needs to be transferred to some other Court?
15. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.121/1992 has been filed by the respondent for injunction before the Munisff, Gangavathi. It was transferred to Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Koppal and renumbered as O.S.No.193/1992. On further transfer to the Additional : 13 : Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gangavathi, it was renumbered as O.S.No.74/2010. The suit came to be dismissed on 18.06.2011. The respondent has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.14/2011. The record indicates that arguments were heard several times but not concluded. The present Presiding Officer has taken charge during February 2014. There is a direction by this Court in MFA No.21690/2013 to dispose of the appeal within six months. Thereafter, time has been extended by four months. The Presiding Officer with the consent of the counsel for both the parties has fixed the date of hearing as 02.06.2014. On that day the counsel for the appellant has started arguments and argued the matter. The case has been adjourned to 03.06.2014 for further arguments. On 03.06.2014, the petitioner has filed a memo seeking adjournment on the ground that the petitioner wants to move for transfer of the case as the petitioner apprehends that they may not get justice from the Court. As memo was not entertained, the application : 14 : supported by memorandum of facts has been filed to adjourn the matter. The Presiding Officer has adjourned the matter by passing a reasoned order. The case has been adjourned to 07.06.2014. On 07.06.2014, when the case was called Sri.Navali Prahalad Rao, Senior Advocate for the petitioner has filed a memo for extension of time to file transfer petition and has prayed for adjournment of the appeal on the ground that between 29.04.2014 to 02.05.2014 when the Peetadhipathi of the respondent-Mutt visited Gangavathi, the Presiding Officer met the Peetadhipathi. Therefore, the petitioner apprehends that they may not get justice from the Court. The Presiding Officer has passed a detailed order on 07.06.2014 and adjourned the case.
16. It is relevant to extract the orders dated 03.06.2014 and 07.06.2014 which read as under:
"03/06/2014 Appellant by A K Advocate Represented by N.P.R. Advocate : 15 : For arguments Sri JVK advocate for appellant present and submits they are ready to address further arguments.
Sri K R M, Advocate for Respondent present and filed application for adjournment u/o 17 Rule 1 of CPC submits the Court to adjourn the matter without hearing arguments of appellants, on the ground that respondent has reason to apprehend that it will not get justice for reason which will be detailed in petition which will be filed for transfer of this case. Sri K R M advocate submits that respondent submits that respondent will file transfer petition.
Sri J V K advocate for appellant files objection to adjournment application.
Heard both sides on adjournment application and perused.
Since the respondent apprehend that it may not get justice before this Court, it is not proper on the part of this Court to reject application and hear further argument of appellant. But this Court personally feels better to mention that what happened in open court on previous date of hearing : 16 : when case was called before appellant advocate commenced arguments.
On 15-02-2014 for 1st time, this case was called before this Court 1st time. On that day Advocate Sri. A K appearing for appellant orally submitted before Court that "since your Honour must be belong to either of math's as such to avoid personal embarrassment" court can transfer this case to some other court. On that day hearing submission of learned Shri A K, this Court in the presence of advocate for respondent Sri K R M, responded that "I belong to both Math's as my parents belong to Uttaradimath and my in-laws belong to Rayarmath and our family has faith in both Maths and till today we are followers of both Swamigalu and I personally know how to control emotions and being judicial officer have never allowed my personal emotions to interfere with my duties as Judicial Officer.
On that day the advocate for respondent submitted they are ever ready to address arguments. Finally, appellant on that day submitted before Court that they will address arguments and took time. Adjourn for 02-04-2014. Case was adjourned for argument and finally on 02-06-2014 : 17 : the Court heard Sri. J.V.K. advocate on merit, from 11.30 am to 1.30 pm and afternoon 4.00 pm to 5.15 pm, in presence of advocate for respondent. On 02- 06-2014, also the respondent did not inform the court about intentions of respondent.
However, no provision of law stops this Court from hearing matter. But this court personally feels that it is not proper on the part of the court to reject application filed for adjournment, when the court is informed that respondent apprehends it may not get justice.
For this reason, it is necessary to adjourn this case for this day.
Call on 07-06-2014."
"07/06/2014 Appellant by A K advocate Respondent by N.P.R. advocate For argument.
Sri NPR Advocate present and files vakalath for respondent.
The learned advocate for respondent present and files memo seeking extension of time to file transfer petition and prayed for adjournment, on the ground that between 29.04.2014 to 02.05.2014, : 18 : when Peetadhipathi of appellant math visited Gangavathi, this Court met appellant Peetadhipathi, as such the respondent apprehends that he may not get justice before this Court.
Heard both sides, perused.
This Court personally fees it is necessary to mention as under:-
It is true that between 29.04.2014 to 02.05.2014 Shri Satyatma Theertha of Uttaradimath visited Gangavathi. One week before the programmes the President of Gangavathi Bar Association Sri.Nagaraj and Senior members of Bar Sri.Ayodhya Ramachar and Sri.N.P.Pralladrao and Shri Sharad Dandin and others met me in my Chamber during lunch hours and invited me for the function to be held on 02.05.2014 i.e, ¥ÁætzÉêÀgÀ ¥ÀæwµÁ×¥À£À (ºÀ£ÀÄEªÀÄAvÀzÉêÀgÀÄ) at Gangavathi. Immediately receiving invitation card this Court expressed.
"²æà ¸ÀvÁåvÀägÀÄ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ, CªÀgÀ PÉøÀÄ F £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ°è EzÉAiÀÄ®è, ºÉÃUÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ" for this the advocate who were present to give invitation, they are Advocates on record of both appellants and respondents. Both expressed that : 19 : EzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä HgÀ°è £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀª æ ÀÄ. CPÀAë iÀÄ vÀÄæwÃAiÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¥ÁætzÉêÀgÀ ¥ÀæwµÁ×¥£ À É £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÀz Û .É £ÁªÀÅ JgÀqÀÆ ªÀÄoÀzÀªg À ÀÆ ¸ÉÃj F PÁAiÀÄðPÀª æ ÀĪÀ£ÀÄß MmÁÖV ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÃÝ ªÉ, vÁªÀÅ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
After receiving invitation this Court contacted Hon'ble District Judge on telephone and informed about invitation received and the statements made before me by both Advocates appearing on record of appellant and respondent. For this Hon'ble District Judge, Koppal expressed that "CPÀAë iÀÄ vÀÄæwÃAiÀiÁ zÉÆqÀØ ºÀ§âªÁzÀ PÁgÀt JgÀqÀÆ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ MmÁÖV PÁAiÀÄðPÀª æ ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt vÁªÀÅ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV ¥ÁætzÉêÀgÀ ¥ÀæwµÁ×¥À£À PÁAiÀÄðPÀª æ ÀĪÀ£ÄÀ ß CmÉAqÀ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ".
Therefore, this Court felt that since I am follower of both Maths and since the function is being celebrated by both advocates on record, I shall visit publicly, as the Akshayathriteeya is being considered as big holy festival among Madhwas and I being Madhwa community person felt no wrong in attending temple publicly. Accordingly, I visited Pranadevara temple on 02.05.2014, i.e., Akshayathriteeya publicly with my family. When I went to temple Sri.Prahalad Rao and Shri Sharad Dandin Advocates appearing for the respondent and : 20 : Sri.Ayodhya Ramachar for appellants were present and all took me to swamiji publicly to get Mantrakshata.Then after taking teerta publicly along with my family and then returned. This Court visited temple as holy day Akshayathriteeya believing that there is no wrong to visit publicly as person from both community were attending the function. Further I wish to mention that on same day I attended puja at Rayarmath Gangavathi for prayer as usual. This Court, on day one, clarified that I am follower of both Maths. Therefore, this Court attended temples on 02.05.2014 Akshayathriteeya as usual.
Now the respondent has come up with application that it has reasons to believe that it may not get justice before Court. Therefore, this Court opines that it is just and necessary to adjourn case to facilitate respondent to obtain stay order.
Hence, case adjourned.
Call on 16.6.2014."
17. Perusal of the order dated 03.06.2014 shows that the Presiding Officer has recorded the events that have occurred in the course of the proceedings. It is stated, on 15.02.2014 for the first time when the case was called : 21 : Advocate Sri. A K appearing for the appellant orally submitted that "since your Honour must be belonging to either of Math's as such to avoid personal embarrassment the Court can transfer this case to some other Court". The Court has responded saying that I belong to both Math's as my parents belong to Uttaradimath and my in-laws belong to Rayarmath and our family has faith in both Maths and till today we are the followers of both Swamigalu and I personally know how to control emotions and being judicial officer have never allowed my personal emotions to interfere with my duties as Judicial Officer".
18. It is stated, the advocate for the respondent submitted that they are ever ready to address the arguments. Thereafter, the case has been adjourned to 02.04.2014, 02.06.2014, 03.06.2014 and subsequently, to 07.06.2014. On 07.06.2014, the learned Presiding Officer has recorded as follows: "It is true that between 29.04.2014 to 02.05.2014 Shri Satyatma Teertha of : 22 : Uttaradimath visited Gangavathi. One week before the programme the President of Gangavathi Bar Association Sri Nagaraj and Senior Member of Bar Sri Ayodhya Ramachar and Sri.N.P.Pralladrao and Shri Sharad Dandin and others met her in the chambers during lunch hours and invited the Presiding Officer for the function to be held on 02.05.2014. When the invitation was extended, the Court expressed ²æà ¸ÀvÁåvÀägÀÄ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ, CªÀgÀ PÉøÀÄ F £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ°è EzÉAiÀÄ®è, ºÉÃUÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ for this the advocates who were present to give invitation, they are Advocates on record for both appellants and respondents. Both expressed that EzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä HgÀ°è £ÀqA É iÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄ. CPÀAë iÀÄ vÀÄæwÃAiÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¥ÁætzÉêÀgÀ ¥ÀæwµÁ×¥À£É £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÁªÀÅ JgÀqÀÆ ªÀÄoÀzÀªÀgÀÆ ¸ÉÃj F PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß MmÁÖV ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÃÉÝ ªÉ, vÁªÀÅ §gÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer contacted the District Judge over phone and has informed that she has received invitation. For this the District Judge has expressed that "CPÀëAiÀÄ vÀÄæwÃAiÀiÁ zÉÆqÀØ ºÀ§âªÁzÀ PÁgÀt JgÀqÀÆ PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ MmÁÖV PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt vÁªÀÅ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV ¥ÁætzÉêÀgÀ : 23 : ¥ÀæwµÁ×¥À£À PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß CmÉAqÀ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ". It is clear, the Presiding Officer was invited by counsel on both the sides. she has decided to visit publicly as the Akshayathrateeya is a holy festival among Madhwas. The order dated 07.06.2014 also discloses that when the Presiding Officer visited the temple on 02.05.2014 with her family Sri.N.P.Pralladrao and Sri.Sharad Dandin, advocates appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Ayodhya Ramachar, advocate appearing for the respondent took her to swamiji publicly to get Mantrakshata. After taking teerta publicly along with the family the Presiding Officer has returned. Thereafter, on the same day she has attended pooja at Rayarmath in Gangavathi.
19. From the two orders dated 03.06.2014 and 07.06.2014 it can be inferred that the Presiding Officer has no bias against either of the parties. The apprehension of the petitioner that they will not get justice at the hand of the Presiding Officer is misconceived and baseless. The : 24 : Presiding Officer has fairly recorded all the events that have occurred right from the date when she assumed charge. In fact, in the memo dated 07.06.2014 the petitioner has stated as follows:
" The respondent reiterates that it has absolute respect and regard to this Hon'ble Court and that the respondent does not in any manner to bring down the majesty and dignity of this Court or impeach the charter, credibility or integrity of the Hon'ble Presiding Officer of this Court.
The respondent also believes in respecting the command and majesty of this Court."
This indicates that the petitioner has full faith in the Presiding Officer. The averments made in the petition do not indicate any bias. Nothing is mentioned about the honesty, integrity or credibility of the Presiding officer. In the absence of any basis, merely on the apprehension that the petitioner will not get justice, it is not proper to transfer : 25 : the case. In my considered view, in the circumstance of the case, the case cannot be transferred. The record indicates that the Presiding Officer has acted very fairly. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to transfer the case.
Accordingly, the civil petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*