Dismissed¶36

R D Dhaneshwari @ Geetha v. R S Revansiddeshwara

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2025CP/402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), Civil Petition No. 402/2024, decided 13-02-2025 (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha): Sec.24 CPC transfer of O.S. No.181/2024 (revocation of gift deeds) from Sagara to Hangal refused; second defendant/wife not required to attend every adjournment; no material on alleged life-threat; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, as second defendant to O.S. No.181/2024, is not required to attend the Court on each and every date of adjournment. ¶35

R D Dhaneshwari @ Geetha Vs R S Revansiddeshwara — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6470 CP No. 402 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL PETITION NO. 402 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R.D. DHANESHWARI @ GEETHA

¶8

W/O DINESH KUMAR R.S. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NOW RESIDING AT C/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA GANGAPPA DHARAWADADAVARAMANE MAIN ROAD, AKKI ALUR HANGAL TALUK-58102 HAVERI DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. VIJAYA M.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANKALKOTE RAJENDRA SHANTAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

R.S. REVANSIDDESHWARA S/O SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, MARKET ROAD SAGAR, PRESENT R/O LIG-71, SHASHI 5^TH CROSS, PRAJANAGAR, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 025

¶14

R.S. DINESH KUMAR S/O SHIVAPPA @ SHIVAYOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:6470 CP No. 402 of 2024

¶17

R/O MARKET ROAD SAGAR TOWN-577 401

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.24 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER FOR TRANSFERRING O.S. NO. 181/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SAGARA TO THE COURT PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HANGAL FOR FURTHER HEARING IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Miss Vijaya M.N, who represents Sri. R.S.Ankalkoti, learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri.Nataraj.P who represents Sri.Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel on record for respondents.

¶25

This is a petition filed seeking the Court to transfer

¶26

O.S. No.181/2024 which is pending before the Court of

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6470 CP No. 402 of 2024

¶28

Principal Civil Judge, Sagara to the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Hangal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of 2^nd respondent.

¶30

There are disputes between them and several cases are pending between them. The first respondent who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.181/2024 which is pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Sagara for revocation of gift deeds. The petitioner being women who is residing at Hangal taluk is unable to attend the Court at Sagara for each and every date of adjournment. Further, there is threat to her life. Therefore, she moved the present petition seeking transfer of the suit.

¶31

Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the first respondent who instituted the suit is resident of Hubli. Basing on territorial jurisdiction he filed the suit at Sagara. Presence of either matrimonial disputes or cases between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, has

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:6470 CP No. 402 of 2024

¶34

nothing to do with the suit that is instituted by the first respondent herein. Also, except for the purpose of facing cross examination or during the course of adducing evidence, the petitioner is not required to attend the Court and therefore the present petition is not maintainable.

¶35

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner who is the 2^nd defendant to the suit in question is not required to attend the Court on each and every date of adjournment. No material whatsoever is on record regarding the alleged threats faced by the petitioner herein. Thus, this Court does not find any valid or convincing grounds to effect transfer as prayed for.

¶36

Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶37

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶38

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT:SNN

R D Dhaneshwari @ Geetha v. R S Revansiddeshwara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R D Dhaneshwari @ Geetha v. R S Revansiddeshwara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Master Shukruth Gowda Vs Smt. Dyvamma

Master Rajesh Vs Sri Basavaraj R

Lokeshappa @ B.V. Lokesh Vs K P Mohan

Smt Jaya P Vs Reliance General Insurance

Sri Prabhakara M Vs Smt. R Jayanthi

Smt Mustari Begum Vs Sri Kifayathulla Khan M.K.H.S Umesh