ORDER This matter is listed for orders to take out notice to respondent 3. 2. Learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 who are the original plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 62 of 1996 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mysore have filed a memo stating that they have no objection to give up respondent 3-Vijayashankar who is defendant l(a) in the said suit. The memo is taken on record. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. In view of the memo filed by respondents 1 and 2, notice to respondent 3 is dispensed with as he has been given up in the original proceedings and with their consent, the matter is heard on merits. 4. This suo motu proceedings is initiated by the Registrar, High Court of Karnataka pursuant to the order passed in C.R.P. No. 3589 of 2003, dated 24:11-2006, wherein this Court directed the Registrar, High Court of Karnataka to register a suo motu civil revision petition and to place the same before the Bench. 5. The background of this case is as hereunder: Respondent 1 is the wife and respondent 2 is the minor son of respondent 4-Mahesh, respectively. Respondents 1 and 2 instituted a suit in O.S. No. 62 of 1996 claiming maintenance not only against the said Mahesh but also against other members of the joint family and sought for partition over the joint family property in respect of maintenance to be awarded in the suit. Even though the Family Court was established in Mysore, by oversight the matter was not transferred to Family Court, Mysore. However, the Civil Court continued the proceedings without any territorial jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Civil Court decreed the suit on 7-12-2001. In the Executing Court, the judgment-debtor raised an objection in regard to the validity of the decree. The Executing Court upheld the objection and held that the Court, which had passed the decree had no jurisdiction to grant the decree. Accordingly, the execution petition came to be dismissed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, a civil revision petition was filed before this Court in C.R.P. No. 3589 of 2003. The Executing Court upheld the objection and held that the Court, which had passed the decree had no jurisdiction to grant the decree. Accordingly, the execution petition came to be dismissed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, a civil revision petition was filed before this Court in C.R.P. No. 3589 of 2003. The learned Judge while disposing of the said civil revision petition by order dated 24-11-2006, directed the Registrar, High Court of Karnataka to file a suo motu civil revision petition to rectify the judgment of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mysore in not transferring the Family Court at Mysore, after establishing the said Court at Mysore. Therefore, the matter is listed before us. 6. In view of the fact that on account of establishment of the Family Court at Mysore, the suit in O.S. No. 62 of 1996 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mysore should have been transferred to the Family Court in view of the Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Since a bona fide mistake has been committed by the office and so also by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties in not bringing to the notice of the Court for transfer of {the case to the Family Court, we are of the view that the mistake committed by the office has to be rectified by this Court. 7. Accordingly, we allow this civil revision petition. We direct the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mysore to transmit the entire records in O.S. No. 62 of 1996 to the Family Court at Mysore and in turn the Family Court at Mysore shall after issuing notice to both the parties on merits, dispose of the matter in accordance with law, within a period of six months from today. Since the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Mysore is without jurisdiction, we have no other option than to set aside the same and remand the matter to the Family Court. 8. We also permit the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 to carry out amendment in the original cause title of the suit for having deleted defendant 1(a)-Vijayashankar.