Karnataka High Court

Smt.Geeta vs Smt.Padmini on 18 November, 2022

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj, G Basavaraja

                                                -1-




                                                       RFA No. 100102 of 2016
                                                      C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017,
                                                      RFA No. 100045 of 2017,
                                                      RFA No. 100235 of 2019

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                           DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                             PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                                                AND
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100102 OF 2016 (PAR/POS)
                                                C/W
                            REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100044 OF 2017
                            REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100045 OF 2017
                            REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100235 OF 2019

                   IN RFA No.100102/2016

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SMT.GEETA
                         W/O DIGAMBAR RAIKAR,
                         AGE:35 YEARS, OC: HOUSE WIFE,
                         R/O: OPP.GURUDWARA,
                         DESHPANDE NAGAR,
                         HUBBALLI-580020.
                   2.    SRI.BASAVARAJ
                         BUDDIVANTAPPA GHANAMUKHI,
                         AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
                         R/O: NAVANAGAR,
                         BAGALKOTE,
                         DIST: BAGALKOTE.
                   3     SRI.KIRAN
                         S/O GOVINDSA PAWAR,
                         AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                         R/O: VIJAYANAGAR,
                         HUBBALLI.
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL

Digitally signed
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Date: 2022.11.23
16:15:55 +0530
                             -2-




                                   RFA No. 100102 of 2016
                                  C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017,
                                  RFA No. 100045 of 2017,
                                  RFA No. 100235 of 2019

4.   SRI.DEEPAK
     S/O GOVINDSA PAWAR,
     AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: VIJAYANAGAR,
     HUBBALLI.
5.   SRI.SURAJ
     S/O GOVINDSA PAWAR,
     AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: VIJAYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

                                                ...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. JYOTI P. DESAI, ADV FOR A1,
SRI S S NIRANJAN, ADV. FOR A2
SRI SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI, ADV. FOR A3 TO A5)

AND:
1.   SMT.PADMINI
     W/O CHANDRAHAS SANU,
     AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE TEACHER,
     R/O: H.NO.794,BEHIND BRINDAVAN POST OFF,
     KADARAGODI, BENGALURU.
2.   SMT.MEERABAI
     W/O GAJANAN VERNEKAR,
     AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
     R/O: H.NO.149, A.E.C.N. LAYOUT,
     SANJAY NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
     BENGALURU.
3.   SRI.VINAYAK
     S/O DEVAPPA SHET,
     AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: NOTHING,
     R/O: OPP. GURUDWARA
     DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI.
4.   SRI.PANDURANG
     S/O DEVAPPA SHET,
     AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: NOTHING,
     R/O: OPP. GURUDWARA
     DESHPANDE NAGAR,
     HUBBALLI.
                             -3-




                                   RFA No. 100102 of 2016
                                  C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017,
                                  RFA No. 100045 of 2017,
                                  RFA No. 100235 of 2019

5.   SRI.GANGADHAR
     S/O DEVAPPA SHET,
     AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: OPP. GURUDWARA
     DESHPANDE NAGAR,
     HUBBALLI.
6.   SRI.AMBASA
     S/O RAMANDRASA HABIB,
     AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: JAGADISH NAGAR,
     HEGGERI, OLD HUBBALLI,
     HUBBALLI.

                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R5
SRI S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R6)

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 R/W. ORDER XLI
RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DTD:02.03.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.249/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI,
ALLOWING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.


IN RFA NO 100044/2017
BETWEEN:
1.   PRAMOD S/O GANGADHAR SHET,
     AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR,
     HUBBALLI-580021
2.   AMEET S/O GANGADHAR SHET,
     AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
     R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR,
     HUBBALLI-580021
                             -4-




                                   RFA No. 100102 of 2016
                                  C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017,
                                  RFA No. 100045 of 2017,
                                  RFA No. 100235 of 2019

3.   ARPITA D/O GANGADHAR SHET,
     AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
     R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR,
     HUBBALLI-580021

                                                ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V M SHEELVANT AND S H MITTALKOD,
ADVOCATES)

AND:
1.   SRI.GANGADHAR S/O DEVAPPA SHET,
     AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR,
     HUBBALLI-580021
2.   KAMAKSHI W/O GANGADHAR SHET,
     AGE: 46 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR,
     HUBBALLI-580021
3.   DIGAMBAR S/O JAGANNATH RAIKAR,
     AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: H.NO.11/A,
     HASTINAPUR LAYOUT,
     KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580021
4.   GEETA W/O DIGAMBAR RAIKAR,
     AGE: 36 YAERS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O: H.NO.11/A,
     HASTINAPUR LAYOUT,
     KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580021

                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT JYOTI P. DESAI, ADV FOR R3 AND R4
R1 AND R2 SERVED)

                              ---

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 R/W 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMNT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 85/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI.

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

IN RFA NO. 100045/2017 BETWEEN:

1. PRAMOD S/O GANGADHAR SHET, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021.

2. AMEET S/O GANGADHAR SHET, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021.

...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V M SHEELVANT AND SMT. JYOTI P. DESAI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. GEETA, W/O DIGAMBAR RAIKAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: H.NO.11/A, HASTINAPUR LAYOUT, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.-580021.

2. DIGAMBAR S/O JAGANNATH RAIKAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.11/A, HASTINAPUR LAYOUT, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.-580021.

3. SRI.GANGADHAR S/O DEVAPPA SHET, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI.-580021.

4. KAMAKSHI W/O GANGADHAR SHET, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI.-580021.

5. SMT.PADMINI W/O CHANDRAHAS SANU, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: WHITEFIELD, KADAGUDI, BENGALURU.-560089

6. SRI.CHANDRAHAS SANU, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: WHITEFIELD, KADAGUDI, BENGALURU.-560089

...RESPONDENTS

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

(BY SMT. JYOTI P. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R3 AND R4 SERVED SRI DINESH M KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS UNDER SEC. 96 R/W XLI RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 89/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI,

IN RFA NO. 100235/2019

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.AMBASA S/O RAMCHANDRASA HABIB, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O JAGADISH NAGAR, HEGGERI, OLD-PLAINTIFF HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI 580 029.

...APPELLNT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI.PANDURANG S/O DEVAPPA SHETH, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, OPP. GURUDWARA TEMPLE, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580029

2. SRI GANGADHAR S/O DEVAPPA SHETH AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, OPP. GURUDWARA TEMPLE, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580029 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S H MITTALKOD FOR SRI VINAY S KOUJALAGI ADV FOR R1, R2 SERVED)

---

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMNT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 110/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI.

THIS APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

1. RFA No.100102/2016 had been filed by the appellants

aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016

passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in

O.S.No.249/2010.

1.1. O.S.No.249/2010 had been filed by the respondent

No.1 (plaintiff) herein seeking for partition and

separate possession of her share in the suit schedule

properties therein, contending that her brothers

defendants No.3 and 4 were acting contrary to her

interest. She further clamed that, she along with

defendant No.1 and another brother defendant No.2

had a right in the said properties.

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

1.2. The trial Court after evidence being led and arguments

being heard, decreed the suit by holding that the

plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 were each entitled to

1/5th share in the suit schedule properties.

1.3. The appellants claim to be the purchasers of the

different portions of the suit schedule properties from

defendants No.3 and 4.

2. Smt. Jyoti B. Desai, learned counsel appearing for appellant

No.1 in RFA No.100102/2016 submits that she does not

have any grievance with the judgment passed since 1st

appellant's interest are protected.

3. However, Sri. Suresh P. Hudedagaddi, learned counsel

appearing for appellants No.3 to 5 (defendants No.8 to 10)

and Sri. S. S. Niranjan learned counsel appearing for

appellant No.2 (defendant No.7) would submit that;

3.1. A power of attorney had been issued in favour of the

husband of appellant No.1 (defendant No.3), namely

Digambar Raikar, who was supposed to contest the

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

matter on behalf of appellants No.2 to 5 (defendants

No.7 to 10).

3.2. The said Digambar Raikar is the brother-in-law of

defendants No.3 and 4, who are married to two sisters,

of whom, Digambar is a brother. As such, Digamber

being the brother-in-law of defendants No.3 and 4 and

appellant No.1 being the co-sister, they have acted in

collusion with each other so as to contest the matter

only insofar as appellant No.1 (defendant No.5) is

concerned, thereby depriving the appellants No.2 to 5

(defendants No.7 to 10) of their right to contest in the

matter.

3.3. A perusal of the judgment would indicate that the

evidence is led only on behalf of defendant No.5 by

her Power of Attorney holder Digambar, who has only

supported the case of defendant No.5 and not the

case of other defendants.

3.4. He further submits that, other brothers have also not

led their evidence and the suit as such is a collusive

- 10 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

one and in that background, he submits that appellants

No.2 to 5 (defendants No.7 to 10) are required to be

given an opportunity to contest the matter by filing their

written statement and leading evidence.

3.5. He has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule

27 which has been numbered as I.A.1/2018 seeking to

produce the judgment in O.S.No.61/2013, which has

been passed in favour of one Basavaraj,

S/o.Buddivantappa, decreeing the specific

performance suit filed and directing defendants No.3

and 4 to execute a sale deed in favour of the said

Basavaraj. On an Execution Petition No.147/2013

having been filed, the Executing Court had appointed

the Commissioner to execute the sale deed in

furtherance of which a sale deed came to be executed

by the Commissioner on 09.01.2014 in favour of the

said Basavaraj, who had subsequently on 17.06.2015

executed a sale deed in favour of appellant No.2 to 5,

who are defendants No.7 to 10 in the aforesaid suit.

- 11 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

3.6. He submits that, if these documents had been brought

to the notice of the Court, the Court would have had to

take into account the right of appellants No.2 to 5

before disposing of the suit. The fault lies with the

Power of Attorney Digambar Raikar, husband of

defendant No.5 and brother-in-law of defendants No.3

and 4 for not having produced the said documents.

4. Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 (plaintiff) herein would submit that;

4.1. Irrespective of the sale which is agreed in favour of

appellant No.1 by appellants No.3 and 5, the right of

the plaintiff cannot be refused or interfered with by this

Court on the basis of the documents having been

produced, since the suit schedule property is the self -

acquired property of the father of the plaintiff and

defendants No.1 to 4. each of them having 1/5th share

and if at all any sale agreement has been executed

and subsequent thereto the sale deed has been

executed, that can be from and out of the share of

- 12 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

defendants No.3 and 4 not effecting the shares of the

plaintiff.

4.2. Defendants No.7 to 10 not having led evidence, the

question of filing an application under Order 41 Rule

27 of CPC for further evidence to be placed on record

before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.

4.3. He submits that the interest of the purchasers is

protected by the judgment of the trial Court.

5. RFA 100044/2017 has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.

No.85/2015 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree

dated 25.10.2016 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Hubballi.

5.1. The said suit had been filed for declaration that the

plaintiffs therein were in settled possession of the

property bearing CTS No.163/84B and restraining

defendants No.3 and 4 therein from interfering with

their possession.

- 13 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

5.2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.85/2015 are the sons and

daughter of Gangadhar Shet, who is defendant No.4 in

O.S.No.249/2010 and the defendants in O.S.

No.85/2015 are Gangadhar, his wife and Digambar.

Defendant No.5 in O.S.No.249/2010 is the wife and

the husband is defendant No.5. The plaintiff in O.S.

No.249/2010 is the defendant No.5 in O.S.No.89/2016.

5.3. O.S.No.89/2016 has been filed by the defendant No.5

and her husband against defendant No.4, his wife and

children claiming that they are in possession and being

the owners, the declaration and injunction was sought

for against the defendants therein.

5.4. By virtue of the judgment and decree dated

25.10.2016, O.S.No.85/2016 was decreed. It is

aggrieved by the same that the plaintiffs in O.S.

No.85/2015 are before this Court in RFA

No.100044/2017.

6. Sri. S. H. Mitalkod, learned counsel for the appellants

submits that, any transaction entered into by their father and

- 14 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

the other defendants is not binding on them. They having a

right in the property since the grand father had purchased

the property and the property had been sold by their father

without their concurrence.

7. RFA 100045/2017 has been filed by defendants No.3 and 4

in O.S.No.89/2016 being aggrieved by the finding of the trial

Court that the suit schedule property is the self acquired

property of the father of defendant No.4 in O.S.

No.249/2010.

8. RFA No.100235/2019 has been filed by defendant No.6 in

O.S.No.249/2010 being aggrieved by the judgment and

decree passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in

O.S. No.110/2010. Defendant No.6 as a plaintiff in the said

suit has sought for specific performance of agreement of sale

executed by defendants No.3 and 4 in O.S. No.249/2010

agreeing to sell suit schedule properties in favour of the said

defendant No.6. The suit in O.S.No.110/2010 came to be

partly decreed by granting refund of earnest money with

interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of institution of

- 15 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

the suit till actual realization. The relief of specific

performance being rejected on the ground that, during the

pendency of the suit, there was suit in O.S.No.249/2010 filed

for partition as also the suit in O.S.No.61/2013 had been

decreed directing specific performance of the agreement of

sale in favour of defendant No.7.

9. Sri. S. K Kayakamath, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that;

9.1. Defendant No.6 had filed applications in I.A.No.15

under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC to implead

defendant No.2 in the said proceedings as also an

application in I.A.No.16 under Order VI Rule 17 of

CPC seeking for incorporation of pleadings as regards

the subsequent events including challenge to the

decree in O.S. No.61/2013 and the subsequent sale

deed which have been executed.

9.2. A further application in I.A.No.17 had also been filed

under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil

- 16 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

Procedure for impleading defendants No.8 to 10 and

to challenge the sale deed executed in their favour.

9.3. He submits that the said application in I.A.No.15, 16

and 17 came to be rejected, thus depriving the

defendant No.6, who was the plaintiff therein, of his

just reliefs.

10. Having perused the papers and having heard all the learned

counsel, we are of the considered opinion that;

10.1. Though RFA No.100102/2016 arises out of the

judgment in O.S.No.249/2010, RFA No.100044/2017

arises out of O.S.No.85/2015, RFA No.100045/2017

arises out of O.S.No.89/2016 and RFA

No.100235/2019 arises out of O.S.No.110/2010, all

the said suits dealt with the same suit schedule

properties and the rights of the family members vis-à-

vis purchasers of those properties.

10.2. The different findings which have been given by

different Courts is on account of different proceedings

- 17 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

being conducted, evidence being conducted differently

and orders being passed differently.

10.3. We are of the considered opinion that the submission

made by Sri. S. P Hudedagaddi, learned counsel for

defendants No.7 to 10 that their interest were

purposely disregarded and compromised by their

Power of Attorney holder Digambar Raikar, who is the

husband of defendant No.5 and brother-in-law of

defendants No.3 to 4, stands to reason and logic on

the basis of the manner in which the proceedings were

conducted.

10.4. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that

defendants No.7 to 10 were not able to contest the

matter due to the collusion between the husband of

defendant No.5 and defendants No.3 and 4. As such,

the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.249/2010

would be required to be set aside and the matter be

remitted for fresh trial by allowing the application in

I.A.1/2018.

- 18 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

10.5. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.85/2015

and 89/2016 would also be required to be set aside for

fresh trial to be conducted taking into account the

various pleadings made by different parties.

10.6. Insofar as RFA No.100235/2019, we are of the

considered opinion that I.A.Nos.15, 16 and 17 ought to

have been allowed permitting the impleading of parties

are amendment of the pleadings so as to enable the

proper and effective adjudication of the dispute

between the parties. Hence the judgment and decree

in O.S.No.110/2010 is also required to be set aside.

11. In the above circumstances, we pass the following order:

ORDER

i. I.A.No.1/2018 filed in RFA No.100102/2016 is

allowed. The additional evidence is taken on record.

The judgment and degree dated 02.03.2016 passed

in O.S.No.249/2010 by the I Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Hubballi is set aside and the matter is

- 19 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

remitted to the trial Court with a direction to the trial

Court to permit defendants No.7 to 10 to file their

written statement and thereafter to frame issues and

permit all the parties to lead further evidence.

ii. The judgment and degree passed by the III

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in O.S.

Nos.85/2015 and 89/2016 dated 25.10.2016 is set

aside.

iii. Sri. S.S.Niranjan, learned counsel accepts notice for

proposed defendants in I.A.No.15 filed in

O.S.No.110/2010. He has no objection for allowing

the said application. The said application in

I.A.No.15 is allowed. The person named therein is

brought on record as defendant No.3.

iv. Sri. Suresh P. Hudedagaddi, learned counsel

accepts notice for the proposed defendants in

I.A.No.17. He has no objection for the said

application to be allowed. The persons named there

are brought on record as defendants No.4 to 6.

- 20 -

RFA No. 100102 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100044 of 2017, RFA No. 100045 of 2017, RFA No. 100235 of 2019

v. I.A.No.16 filed under Order VI Rule 17 is allowed.

The counsel for the plaintiff to carry out necessary

amendment.

vi. All the above matters are remitted to the Court of I

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi to be clubbed

and to conduct common trial by providing adequate

opportunity to all the parties.

vii. Considering that the suits have been pending from

the year 2010, the trial court is directed to dispose of

the said suits as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of 18 months from the date

of receipt of copy of this order.

viii. The submission made by counsel that they will co-