IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.55771 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) Between:
1. Smt. Meenakshi, W/o. late M.P. Basavaraj, Aged about 49 years, 2. Sri M.B. Shivakumar, S/o. late M.P. Basavaraj, Aged about 33 years, 3. Sri M.B. Kiran Kumar, S/o. late M.P. Basavaraj, Aged about 33 years, All are Agriculturists, R/at Muttina Mullusoge Village, Doddakamaravali Post, Harnalli Hobli, Piriyapatna Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 187. …Petitioners (By Sri V.R. Prasanna, Advocate) And:
Sri H.K. Putta Nayaka, S/o. late Kullaiah, Aged: Major, Occ: KSRTC Driver, R/at Muttina Mullusoge Village, Doddakamaravali Post, Harnalli Hobli, Piriyapatna Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 187.. …Respondent (By Sri P.M. Siddamallappa, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 21.11.2017 on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.31/2013 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Piriyapatna at Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the petitioners’ counsel. Respondent’s counsel is absent.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.21/2013 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Piriyapatna. The suit is for declaration of their title and possession in respect of properties described in schedules ‘A’ to ‘M’ to the plaint. Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.21/2013 has also filed O.S.No.31/2013 in the same Court for declaration of his title and injunction in respect of a portion of land in Sy.No.46/1 of Dindugadu Village, Haranahalli Hobli, Piriyapattana Taluk which is said to be a portion of ‘A’ schedule in O.S.No.21/2013. The petitioner sought for consolidation of these two suits for the purpose of leading common evidence. The trial Court dismissed the application giving reasons that cause of action in the two suits are different and if two suits are clubbed, it will give room for multiplicity of proceedings.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, it can be said that the reasons given by learned trial Judge for not clubbing the two suits are not sustainable. Cause of actions in the two suits may be different but it must be noted that the suit filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.21/2013 is in respect of part of ‘A’ schedule property. Actually, two suits should be clubbed to avoid conflicting judgments. Hence, the following order;
Order dated 21.11.2017 on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.31/2013 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Piriyapattana is set aside. The said application is allowed. O.S.Nos.21/2013 and 31/2013 are consolidated. The trial Court is directed to decide the two suits together.
It is made clear that if recording of evidence is completed in one of the suits, separate evidence may be recorded in the other suit, or else common evidence may be recorded if in the two suits, recording of evidence has not yet commenced.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/-