Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kashyap. N. Patel vs Smt. Jaya N.D. Patel on 17 June, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.13242 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KASHYAP. N. PATEL
S/O LATE. SRI N D PATEL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.484
"SHIVASHAKTHI" 15TH MAIN ROAD,
RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560 080.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYA N.D. PATEL
W/O LATE SRI. N.D. PATEL
MAJOR
2. SRI. KARADAM PATEL
S/O LATE SRI. N.D. PATEL
MAJOR
3. SRI. PRASHANTH N. PATEL
S/O LATE SRI. N.D. PATEL
2
MAJOR,
RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT No.484, 'SHIVASHAKTHI'
15TH MAIN ROAD,
RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 080.
4. M/S. CLASSIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
AT NO.5/2, 1ST FLOOR,
RUSSELL STREET
CALCUTTA-700 071
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. RAVI PURI
5. M/S ITC LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
"VIRGINIA HOUSE", 37
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD
KOLKATA-700 071
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS
6. M/S TRIAD RESORTS & HOTELS
PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
7. M/S NOORANI PROPERTIES
PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
8. M/S. VERDE DEVELOPERS
PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. SURJIT SINGH DHINGRA
3
RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8 HAVING
OFFICE AT "APARANTA" 2208
HAL III STAGE
80 FT. ROAD, KODIHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 008
RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8 ARE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. SURJIT SINGH DHINGRA
9. SRI. SURJIT SINGH DHINGRA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O HARICHARAN SINGH DHINGRA
No.443, 'THE EMBASSY'
No.15, ALI ASKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 052.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH BADIGER, ADV FOR R-1 & R-3
SRI. SARAVANA PRABHU J., ADV. FOR R-2
SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GANAPATHI HEGDE, ADV FOR R-4 & R-5
R-6 TO R-9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. SR.CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT, BANGALORE ON IA UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6
OF CPC IN O.S.402/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW
THE SAID APPLICATION AND DECREE THE SUIT IN
O.S.402/2010.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.06.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by defendant No.2
challenging the order dated 17.11.2017 passed on the
interlocutory application in O.S.No.493/2011 by the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.402/2010
against the respondents for declaration and
possession of suit schedule property. Respondent
No.4 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.493/2011 for specific
performance of contract. In the suit-
O.S.NO.493/2011, respondent No.4 filed an
application for clubbing O.S.No.402/2010 with
O.S.No.493/2011. The said application was opposed
by the petitioner by filing objection contending that
suits cannot be consolidated on the ground that
parties are different in both the suits and relief sought
in both the suits are different and hence, prayed to
dismiss the application. The trial Court after hearing
the parties allowed the application filed by respondent
No.4. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard learned Senior counsel Sri Shashikiran
Shetty for Sri. M Jagadeesh for the petitioner and
learned counsels for respondents.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the parties are different in both the suits.
He submits that in O.S.No.402/2010 is for the relief of
declaration etc. and O.S.No.493/2011 is for specific
performance and the issues that would arise are
different and scope of enquiry in both the suits are
different. Further, in support of his contention he
places reliance on the decisions of Co ordinate
Benches of this Court in the case of
Shivashankargouda and Another v. Anuradha
and others in CRP No.100007/2017 disposed of on
16th March 2018 and also in the case of M/s Sai
Constructions v. M/s. Modern India Ltd. And
Others in W.P.No.103076/2020 disposed of on 12th
March 2021. He submits that the trial Court
committed an error in passing the impugned order.
Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ
petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.5 submits that the parties in both the
suits are one and the same and further the subject
matter of the suit property in both the suits are one
and the same. He further submits that in order to
avoid contradictory judgments, consolidation of the
suits is necessary.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5 in support
of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitivalasa
Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement reported in
(2004) 3 SCC 85. He submits that the trial Court was
justified in passing the impugned order. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.402/2010
seeking declaration of title and possession of the suit
schedule property. Respondent No.4 filed a suit in
O.S.No.493/2011 for the relief of specific performance
of an agreement of sale in respect of the subject
matter of the suit schedule property. The petitioner
being one of the defendants in the said suit
(O.S.No.493/2011) filed the written statement.
Respondent No.4 filed an application for clubbing O.S
No.402/2010 with O.S.No.493/2011 contending that
the parties in both the suits are one and the same and
suit property in both the suits are one and same.
7.1. Perused the cause title of plaint of both the
suits. Except the 9th respondent herein, all others are
parties in both the suits. Admittedly, the subject
matter of suit property involved in both the suits are
one and the same. Further, parties in both the suits
are one and the same.
8. Consolidation of suits, ordering joint trial or
clubbing of the suits all these will be done keeping in
view the convenience of the parties depending upon
the parties to the suit, subject matter of litigation,
nature of defence raised in the suits and keeping in
view the issues which had been settled and further to
save the precious time of the Court in recording
evidence which needs to be recorded for different
trials. If both the suits are allowed to be tried
separately and there are different judgments, it would
be result in rendering contradictory judgments on the
same subject matter. Consolidation of such suits will
be necessary for doing complete justice to the parties
and saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings.
The trial Court considering that parties to both the
suits are one and the same except the respondent and
the subject matter of the suit property is also same,
has passed the impugned order.
9. In Shivashankargouda case supra, referred
to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioners in the said petition challenged the order of
transferring the suits from the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Hangal to the Senior Civil Judge,
Hangal, for trial, by clubbing the same. The learned
Single Judge has not disturbed the order passed for
clubbing. However, reserved liberty to the petitioners
therein to make an application for separating of
clubbed cases. Hence, the aforesaid said case is not
applicable to the present case.
9.1 Further, in M/s Sai construction supra,
relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, it is observed that the suits are based on
independent agreements of sale pertaining to separate
properties and would lead to complication in recording
evidence and documents while adjudicating
independent claims in both the suits and hence, this
Court declined to club the said suits. In the instant
case, suit property is one and the same in both the
suits. Hence, the aforesaid judgment relied upon by
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is not
applicable to the present case in hand.
10. As observed above, in the present case,
parties in both the suits and subject matter of the suit
property are one and the same. The object of
clubbing the suits is to avoid rendering contradictory
judgments on the same subject matter. Hence, the
trial Court after considering the material on record
was justified in passing the impugned order. I do not
find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
11. For the reasons stated above, I proceed to
pass the following order :
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
rs
