CHANNAVEERAPPA Vs. CHANNABASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter coming up for orders is disposed of by the following order by consent of Counsel for the parties and after hearing the Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Briefly stated facts are as follows:- One K. Channabasappa was the plaintiff in O.S.No. 234 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (revision petitioner in this Court) from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Prior to the filing of that suit, Channaveerappa, the revision petitioner, had filed O.S.No. 187 of 1987 on the file of the Munsiff, Shikaripur, seeking identical relief against Channabasappa the plaintiff in O.S.No. 234 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge. The revision petitioner in his suit has prayed for injunction in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property in the other suit. It was thereafter that Channabasappa filed a petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C. seeking transfer of the suit pending in the Munsiff's Court to be tried by the Civil Judge as it would be more appropriate and convenient having regard to the fact that the injunction granted by the Civil Court would cover both the cases as the schedule property in O.S.No. 187 of 1987 was only a portion of the suit schedule property in O.S.No. 234 of 1987. After notice and after hearing the parties, the learned District Judge has directed the transfer as prayed for. Therefore, the present revision inter-alia on the ground that the suit before the Munsiff, Shikaripur, was filed earlier than the suit in the Court of the Civil Judge and in order to harass the revision petitioner, the respondent Channabasappa has intentionally over-valued the suit schedule property in the suit filed by him in O.S. No. 234 of 1987 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, knowing full well that the revision petitioner would be put to great hardship in defending that suit or prosecuting his own suit at Tumkur.

(3.) Whether the suit is over-valued or not is a question which the Civil Judge has to decide in the suit pending before him and not this Court in revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. at this stage. Therefore, that ground urged in support of the prayer in this revision must be rejected.