IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.4424/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN Mrs.Betty D’Sylva w/o Charles D’ Sylva Aged about 58 years Presently r/a No.220/1 4th Main, 4th Cross Viveknagar Bengaluru-560047. ..Petitioner (BY Sri K M Jaganath, Advocate) AND 1. Mrs.M Adams w/o late K Adams Aged about 84 years Presently camping in a portion of premises No.15, D & F Block Austin Town Bengaluru-560 047.
2. Mrs.Noreen Devaney w/o George Devaney aged about 65 years Presently r/a.No.15/A D & F Block, Austin Town Bengaluru-560 047.
3. Mr.Gavin Devaney s/o George Devaney Aged about 40 years Presently r/a.No.15/A D & F Block, Austin Town Bengaluru-560 047.
4. Mrs.Kimberly Ann Bastion w/o Oral Bastion aged about 45 years Presently r/a.No.15/A D & F Block, Austin Town Bengaluru-560 047.
5. Mr.Oral Bastion s/o Bastion Aged about 60 years Presently r/a.No.15/A D & F Block, Austin Town Bengaluru-560 047.
6. Miss.Reannen Bastion d/o Bastion aged about 23 years Presently r/a.No.15/A D & F Block, Austin Town Bengaluru-560 047.
7. Mr.Joshua Hudson Samuel s/o Samuel, Aged about 58 years, Advocate, presently of Cariappa Wing, First Floor Devatha Plaza, Residency Road Bengaluru-560 025. .. Respondents (By Sri Christopher E, Advocate for C/R1, Notice to R2 to R7 d/w v/c/o dtd:22.3.2019) This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash and set aside the impugned order vide Annexure-H dated 01.01.2019 passed in OS No.26697/2013 by the Court of the LXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit at Bangalore, CCCH No.74.
This writ petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in OS No.26697/2013 pending on file of the LXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit at Bengaluru, CCCH No.74 challenging the order dated 1st January, 2019, rejecting I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking clubbing of OS No.8070/2013.
2. The petitioner sought for mandatory injunction against the defendant, based on the registered gift dated 18.7.2009. The 1st defendant also filed OS No.8070/2013 against the petitioner herein for declaration and cancellation of gift deed dated 18.7.2009, on the ground that the same is obtained fraudulently. The said suit is now posted for evidence. In OS No.26697/2013 filed by the petitioner herein, issues have not yet been framed.
3. The Trial Court, considering the averments made in the application and objections filed therein has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff in OS No.26697/2013 mainly on the ground that the reliefs sought in the said suit is only for injunction. Apart from that, 50% of the evidence in OS No.8070/2013 is completed and trial in OS No.26677/2013 is yet to begin. This would indicate that the status of the above suits are at different stages and the reliefs sought are also entirely different.
4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in OS No.26697/2013 fairly submits that all the pending applications filed by the plaintiff do not survive and such applications, if any, will be withdrawn as not pressed and petitioner will co-operate for expeditious disposal of both the suits. The said submission is placed on record.
5. Sri Christopher, learned counsel for the 1st defendant submits that an application was filed for deletion of the name of the learned counsel for defendant No.7 in OS No.8070/2013. Sri Jagannath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he has no objection to allow the said application, seeking for deletion of the name of Sri Christopher, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.7. The said submission is placed on record.
6. In view of the submissions made by the respective counsel, it is manifestly clearly that even though the above suits are filed by different persons for different reliefs, they pertain to same property. The suit filed by the petitioner for mandatory injunction and another suit filed by the 1st defendant (respondent No.1 herein) for declaration and to cancel the gift deed on the ground that the same has been obtained by fraudulently. If both the suits are clubbed and tried together, no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties to the lis. On the other hand, the same would enure to the benefit of both the parties for expeditious disposal of the case.
7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.01.2019 passed in OS No.26697/2013 by the Court of the LXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit at Bangalore, CCCH No.74 (Annexure-H), is hereby quashed. I.A. filed by the petitioner for clubbing of both the suits (OS No.26672/2013 and OS No.8070/2013) is allowed. The Trial Court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the suits expeditiously, within outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving reasonable opportunity for both the parties in accordance with law as expeditiously.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm