IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.50767 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN 1. Smt. Muneera Begum, Aged about 80 years, Wife of Nissar Ahmed, 2. Smt. Sara Ahmed, Aged about 55 years, D/o. Late Nissar Ahmed, 3. Sri. Yousuff Ahmed, Aged about 52 years, S/o. Late Nissar Ahmed, 4. Sri. Niyaz Ahmed, Aged about 47 years, S/o. Ahmed, Petitioners No.1 to 4 are residing at No.243, 7th Main, 3rd Stage, Pillanna Garden, Bengaluru-560045.
5. Sri. S.Javeed Ahmed, Aged about 46 years, S/o. Late Abdul Sattar, No.6, Albert Street, Richmond Town, Bengaluru-560025. …Petitioners (By Sri. V.B.Shivakumar, Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Syed Khalandar Shah, Aged about 50 years, S/o. Syed Jaleel Shah, No. 85/86, 34th Cross, 9th Main, Yarab Nagar, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru-560070.
2. Smt. Sunitha @ Sunitha Jain, Aged about 48 years, W/o. Chamanlal Jain, No.90/47, 2nd Floor, 8th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru-560027. …Respondents (By Sri. C.S.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, for R1, Sri. Channabasaiah G.M., and Sri. M.Byregowda, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge in Miscellaneous No.252/2014 that O.S.No.240/2013 connected with O.S.No.4719/2013 is withdrawn from CCH-
7 and now assigned to CCH No.17 which is Annexure-D and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.9.2017 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge as per Annexure-D.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
3. First respondent instituted O.S.240/2013 for specific performance and the fifth petitioner filed a suit O.S. 4719/2013 for perpetual injunction. The suit filed by the fifth petitioner was assigned to CCH.45. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge passed an order withdrawing O.S.4719/2013 from the file of CCH.45 and transferred it to CCH.31 where O.S.240/2013 was pending. This order was questioned by filing W.P.34356/2014. In the said Writ Petition, the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge was directed to reconsider the order dated 9.7.2014. Accordingly, the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge acted on the directions given by this court in the said writ petition and transferred the two suits to another Court Hall, i.e., CCH.7 for disposal in accordance with law. This being the background, on 20.9.2017, the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge passed another order withdrawing these two suits from CCH.7 and transferring them to CCH.17. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge should not have exercised his powers to transfer the two suits to CCH.17 without there being any reason. The parties did not apply for transfer nor there was any direction from the High Court. He also submits that the High Court has repeatedly given directions to the trial court for disposal of the suit within a time limit, but the suits have still remained undisposed of and the transferee court is not at all taking up the suits for disposal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the entire Writ Petition does not disclose as to how the transfer of suits from CCH.7 to CCH.17 has affected the interest of the petitioners and therefore the Writ Petition is devoid of merits.
5. I have perused the order passed by this court in W.P.34356/2014. The observation made by this court in the said Writ Petition is extracted here below :-
“3. ….. Therefore, it is appropriate if the matters are listed before any court other than Court Hall No.31 or Court Hall No.45 and therefore, the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge is directed to reconsider the order, which is impugned herein and to transfer the cases concerned to a Court other than Court Hall No.31 and Court Hall No.45, which would avoid going into other allegations and counter allegations of the parties touching upon the integrity of the Presiding Officers of the Courts of law”.
It appears that pursuant to the directions given by this court in the said Writ Petition, the two suits were transferred to CCH.7. Perusal of Annexure-D shows that the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge has referred to the order passed by this court in W.P.34356/2014 for re- transferring the two suits to CCH.17. When there was already transfer of two suits to CCH.7 pursuant to the orders in W.P.34356/2014, there was no need to transfer the two suits again to CCH.17. Perhaps this action of Principal City Civil Judge may be a mistake. Added to this section 5 (2) of the City Civil Courts Act confers powers on the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge to distribute the business of the City Civil Court among other Judges. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot question the distribution of work thus made by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge. Even if it is assumed that the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge should have assigned reasons for transferring the suits to CCH.17 and in that view there is a mistake in the order, it is not forthcoming as to how the interest of the petitioners has been affected. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition and it is dismissed.
Both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents submit that suits have remained undisposed of in spite of repeated directions given by this court. In this view of the matter, the trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suits within a period of six months from today.
Sd/- JUDGE ckl