IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CIVIL PETITION No.102 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Shankarachar Aged 45 years S/o Late MAyachar 2. Mr. Nageshachar S/o Late Mayachar Aged 43 years 3. Mr. Chandrachar S/o Late Mayachar Aged 40 years All are R/o Opposite to Malleshwara Temple Channapattana Extension Holenarasipura Road Hassan City, Hassan District-573201 (By Sri P.K.Srikara, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner Hassan District, Hassan-573201 …Petitioners 2. The Assistant Commissioner Hassan Sub Division Hassan District, Hassan-573201 3. Tahsildar, Hassan Taluk Hassan District, Hassan-573201 4. Government of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001 Represented by its Chief Secretary (By Sri S.Vishwamurthy, HCGP) ... Respondents This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC, praying to transfer O.S.No.347/2010 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Hassan to any other Court outside the jurisdiction of Hassan District having jurisdiction to try the matter.
This Civil Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.347/2010 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan.
2. The main grounds urged by the petitioners for transfer is found in para 26 of the petition, wherein it is stated that while PW-1 was being cross examined, the District Government Pleader gave a suggestion to him that the suit property belongs to the Court and therefore the petitioners state that because of the suggestion, there is likelihood that the Court will show inclination towards the Government and they will not get justice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that because of suggestion given to PW-1, he has expressed an apprehension that the Courts will be lean towards the defendants. He also submits that this suggestion has been given without any foundation in the written statement.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the Court will dispose of the case on merits. A mere suggestion given to PW-1 cannot be a ground for granting transfer.
5. I have perused the cross examination of PW-1.
It is true that a suggestion has been given to PW-1 that the suit property has been granted for the purpose of constructing a Court building. Just because a suggestion of this type has been given to the witness, it does not mean that the Court will proceed to dismiss the suit by accepting the contentions of the defendants. The Court is expected to appreciate the evidence and decide the case on merits according to law. Suggestion will not influence any Court, particularly when there is no foundation in the written statement. In this view, I do not find any ground to entertain the transfer petition. Accordingly petition stands disposed of.
KMV Sd/- JUDGE