Case Details

Nagendra Tukaram Gurav Age 40Yrs R/O Shivaji Nagar Belagavi Vs The Div. Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maruti Galli Belagavi

Case Details

casenoCase TypeMisc
casenoFiling Number8/2020
casenoRegistration Number9/2020
caseno Filing Date04-01-2020
hearingRegistration Date06-01-2020
hearingFirst Hearing Date07th January 2020
dateDecision Date17th February 2020
casestatusCase StatusCase Disposed
courtCourt Number and Judge122-Prl. District And Sessions Judge Belagavi;
natureNature of DisposalUncontested--Allowed / Granted After Full Hearing;

Petitioners & Respondents

contactsPetitioner

Nagendra Tukaram Gurav Age Yrs R/O Shivaji Nagar Belagavi, ;

contactsPetitioner Advocate

Ashok A Naik;

contacts Respondent Name

Murli Tukaram Pawar Age Major R/O EWard Bagal Chowk Kolhapur, The Div. Manager United India Insuran Show more..

Order Details

info-icon

Order Details

Order not found.

Final Order Judgement

orderdateOrder Date17-02-2020 documents
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, AT: BELGAUM IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AT: BELAGAVI. DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020. PRESENT SRI R.J. SATISH SINGH, B.Com., LL.M., Principal District Judge, Belagavi. MISCELLANEOUS CASE No.09/2020 PETITIONER: 1) Shri Nagendra S/o Tukaram Gurav, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Mason work, R/o Ramguruwadi, Taluk: Khanapur, District: Belagavi, Now at Shivaji Nagar, Bealgavi. (By Shri Ashok A. Naik, Advocate) -Versus- RESPONDENTS: 1) Mr. Murli Tukaram Pawar, Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o 1046, E-Ward, Bagal, Chowk, Kolhapur, District: Kolhapur, Maharashtra. 2) The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., D.O. 1568, Maruti Galli, Belagavi. (R.1 by Shri S.B. Akkatangerhal, Advocate) (R.2 by Shri V.B. Malannavar, Advocate) ORDER This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of MVC No.1702/2019 on the file of X Addl. District Judge Court, Belagavi to the file of IX Addl. District Judge Court, Belagavi wherein connected claim petition MVC No.500/2018 is pending. Facts leading to filing of this petition are as under : 2. The petitioner has filed MVC No.1702/2019 on account of injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident. It is made over to X Addl. District Judge Court, Belagavi. On the other hand, one connected claim petition in MVC No.500/2018 arising out of the same accident which is made over to IX Addl. District Judge Court, Belagavi. Contention of the petitioner is that since both the claim petitions are arising out of same accident and respondents in both the cases are also one and same, it is just and proper that they are be tried by the same Court. Hence, prayed to allow the petition. 3. In pursuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsels and they submitted that they have no objections to allow the petition. 4. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the entire records. 5. The only point that arises for my consideration is: 2 Misc. Case No.09/2020 “Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to allow this petition?” 6. My answer to the above point for consideration is in the affirmative for the following: REASONS 7. It is not in dispute that plaintiff is arbiter litis or dominus litis has a right to choose his own forum where a suit can be filed in more than one court. Normally, this right of the plaintiff cannot be curtailed, controlled or interfered with. But the said right is controlled by the power vested in superior courts to transfer a case pending in one inferior court to another or to recall the case to itself for hearing and disposal. Sections 22 to 25 enact the law as regards transfer and withdrawal of suits. The paramount object of Section 24 is to facilitate justice. A fair and an impartial trial is a sine qua non and an essential requirement of dispensation of justice. Justice can only be achieved if the court deals with both the parties present before it equally and impartially. Though the petitioner has the right to choose his own forum, with a view to administer justice fairly, impartially, and even-handedly, a court may transfer a case from one court to some other court. 3 8. On this backdrop of settled principles of law, let me advert to the case on hand. 9. I have carefully gone through the entire records. As apparent from the true copy of claim petition in MVC No.500/2018 and cases details from CIS in MVC No.1702/2019, disclosed that they are arising from the same accident and respondents in both cases are one and the same. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 who put their appearance through their counsels, did not resist the petition. Therefore, in my view, there is no impediment to allow the petition as prayed. Hence, I answer the above point in the affirmative and I proceed to pass the following. ORDER Petition filed U/s 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is hereby allowed. MVC No.1702/2019 pending on the file of X Addl. District Judge Court, Belagavi is withdrawn and transferred to IX Addl. District Judge Court, Belagavi wherein connected MVC No.500/2018 is pending, for disposal in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 4 Misc. Case No.09/2020 Communicate the concerned Courts accordingly. (Directly dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court, this the 17th day of February, 2020.) (R.J. SATISH SINGH) PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI. Mgc*. 5 ORDER 2020-02-17T15:42:39+0530 R J SATISH SINGH