Karnataka High Court
Smt Shakuntala Bai vs Sri Kambapathi Balakrishna on 18 January, 2021
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.19797 OF 2014(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT SHAKUNTALA BAI
W/O D SADASHIVA RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.43/75
III MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR
BANGALORE
REP BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI L KRISNJI RAO
S/O OF LATE LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO.443, 3RD CROSS
4TH MAIN, HMT LAYOUT, ANAND NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 024.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.A.MITHUN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KAMBAPATHI BALAKRISHNA
S/O DASHARATHA RAMA SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.43/75, 3RD MAIN ROAD
SUBRAMANYA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 010.
2. SMT MALLIKAMMA
W/O K SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.91, K S B C QUARTERS
LAGGERE MAIN ROAD
KAVERI NAGAR
PEENYA III STAGE
BANGALORE 560 058.
2
3. SRI VISHNU R MAKHIJA
S/O RAMACHANDRA MAKHIJA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.15, I MAIN ROAD
GANGENAHALLI
BANGALORE 560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK.J., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2
SRI. VENKATASWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS DATED: 07.03.2014 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 8 IN O.S.NO.
1710/2005 BY THE LEARNED PRL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-28) AT
BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 07.03.2014, whereby the trial Court allowed the
application, I.A. No.8 filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff
under Section 151 CPC, thereby clubbing
O.S.Nos.8202/2004, 9611/2004 and 1710/2005 to be
decided together.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on
record.
3. The material on record indicates that the petitioner
is the plaintiff in O.S.No.8202/2004 filed by the petitioner for
declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule
immovable property and for other reliefs. In the said suit,
Smt. Gaviyamma and her children have been arrayed as
defendant Nos.2 to 5, while one Sri. Kambampati
Balakrishna is arrayed as defendant No.6.
4. Similarly, O.S.No.9611/2004 is one more suit filed
by Smt. Mallikamma, respondent No.2 herein for injunction
and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule immovable
property comprised of in the said suit. In the said suit,
while the aforesaid Gaviyamma is arrayed as defendant
No.1, the aforesaid Kambampati Balakrishna was arrayed
as defendant No.2 and one Smt. Pushpa as defendant
No.3.
5. The material on record also indicates that
subsequently, the aforesaid Kambampati Balakrishna filed
one more suit in O.S.No.1710/2005 for injunction and other
reliefs in respect of the suit schedule immovable property
comprised of in the said suit. It is relevant to state that in
O.S.No.1710/2005, Smt. Shakuntala Bai (plaintiff in
O.S.No.8202/2005), Smt. Mallikamma (plaintiff in
O.S.No.9611/2004) are arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2
respectively along with one Sri. Vishnu R. Makija as
defendant No.3.
6. In the aforesaid O.S.No.1710/2005, respondent
No.1-plaintiff in the said suit filed the instant application,
I.A.No.8 inter alia contending that defendant Nos.1 and 2 in
the aforesaid O.S.No.1710/2005 had filed the previously
instituted suits in O.S.Nos.8202/2004 and 9611/2004 and
consequently since both of them are parties to the
subsequent suit in O.S.No.1710/2005, common question of
law and facts arise for consideration in all the three suits
and in order to prevent duplication of evidence and passing
of conflicting orders, all the three suits are to be clubbed
and decided together. It was also contended that all the
three suits are pending before the very same Court, which
clubbed all the three suits for disposal together.
7. The petitioner herein opposed the said application
stating that apart from the fact that he was not a party to
O.S.No.9611/2004, the schedule properties in both the
suits were different and consequently, the question of
clubbing O.S.No.9611/2004 along with other two suits does
not arise.
8. By the impugned order, the trial Court came to the
conclusion that since the issues that arise in controversy in
all the three suits are substantially one and the same, in
order to prevent conflicting judgments and to save time of
the Court, it was necessary that all the three suits are to be
clubbed and disposed off together.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the light of the undisputed fact that the subject matter of
O.S.No.8202/204 fled by her and O.S.No.9611/2004 are
different, the question of clubbing all the three suits
together would not arise and as such, the trial Court
committed error in allowing the application. It is also
submitted that since the three suits are at different stages,
the trial Court committed error in clubbing all the three suits
together.
10. In my considered opinion, a perusal of the
schedules to the plaint in all the three suits will indicate that
properties comprised therein are traceable to Sy.No.37. It
is also not in dispute that the plaintiff in O.S.No.1710/2005
has impleaded two plaintiffs in the other two suits as
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Though the defendant Nos.1 and 2
have laid a claim in respect of different sites in their
respective suits, having regard to the fact that all the suits
are said to have been carved out of Sy.No.37 coupled with
the fact that the plaintiff in O.S.No.1710/2005 has
impleaded both plaintiffs in the earlier two suits, the
impugned order directing all the three suits clubbed and
disposed off together has not occasioned failure of justice
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as
held by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5
SCC 423. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition and
accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
It is needless to state that since by virtue of the
impugned order all the suits have been directed to be
clubbed together for disposal, all the parties in all the three
suits are granted liberty to lead evidence/additional
evidence both oral and documentary evidence of their
respective contentions including cross-examining the
witnesses of any of the parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bmc
