Sri. N. B. Gurudeva Vs Sri. B. Venkateshwara Reddy

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9676 CP No. 18 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL PETITION NO. 18 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. N. B. GURUDEVA S/O LATE N.L. BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 4, 1ST FLOOR, FTI COLONY, NEAR WATER TANK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VENKATESH H.N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. B. VENKATESHWARA REDDY S/O B.C. VENKATASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 446, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, 3RD STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 PRAYING TO WITHDRAW THE SUIT IN OS NO. 1777/2024 FROM THE FILE OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 40) AND TRANSFER THE SAID SUIT TO SOME OTHER

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:9676 CP No. 18 of 2025

¶17

COURT IN CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU FOR PROPER DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The present petition is filed seeking to withdraw O.S.No.1777/2024, pending on the file of XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-40) and to transfer the said suit to some other Court in City Civil Court Complex, Bengaluru for proper disposal in accordance with law.

¶22

It is stated that the respondent herein had filed OS No.1777/2024, pending on the file of the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for bare injunction. The Court had granted a temporary injunction as prayed for by an order dated 12.03.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed his vakalath on 29.07.2024 and filed written statement as well as objections to I.A.No.I. Even objections to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 were filed. It is stated that after the objections filed to I.A.No.I, the matter was adjourned on

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:9676 CP No. 18 of 2025

¶25

05.08.2024, 12.09.2024, 16.10.2024, 29.10.2024, 06.11.2024, 15.11.2024, 26.11.2024, 09.12.2024, 17.12.2024 and 07.01.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that in respect of the very same property, he has filed O.S.No.4508/2018 against the vendors of the respondent herein and the said suit came to be decreed and that is upheld by this Court in RFA No.868/2022, disposed of on 23.09.2024. In spite of the same, the learned Judge directed the petitioner who is the defendant in the suit to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC which also came to be filed on 29.10.2024.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the client has lost hope that he would get justice in the hands of the said Court and as such, they are seeking for transfer. It is submitted that the learned Judge is not taking up this matter and adjourning it from the last couple of months which is contrary to the provisions of the CPC as well as contrary to law. It is submitted that the matter may be transferred to some other Court in Bengaluru.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The contention that

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:9676 CP No. 18 of 2025

¶30

as a Judge has not heard the matter immediately after filing an application and the matter is being adjourned from time-totime and in respect of the very same property, the suit that was filed for injunction against the vendors of the defendant which is already decreed and confirmed it in an appeal and when as the Judge is not taking up the matter, they have lost hope on the judge and they want the matter to be transferred to some other Court. Without going into the merits of the matter, the legality or the orders that are passed in favour of the petitioner or against petitioner, on these grounds, the cases cannot be transferred from one Court to the other Court. If the Court is not disposing of the applications and keeping the matters pending, the petitioner is not remediless, he can as well come before this Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and bring to the notice of the High Court how the matters are being dealt with by the learned Judge and what is the injustice that is caused to the petitioner. But the petitioner has not chosen to come before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds that there is delay in taking up the matter, the High Court cannot transfer the case from one Court to the other

¶31

5 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:9676 CP No. 18 of 2025

¶33

Court. In these facts and circumstances and in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court is not inclined to transfer the matter from one Court to the other Court. Accordingly, this Court finds no reasons to entertain this petition. However, considering the particular facts of the case, XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge shall dispose of the pending IAs. as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35