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.6832 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN Sri. Srinivas N., S/o. Late G.Narayanaswamy, Aged about 49 years, R/at No.3, Sarakki Garden, J.P.Nagar, VI Phase, Bangalore-560078.
(By Sri. Adinarayan, Advocate) AND 1. The Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, Bengaluru-560002.
2. The Revenue Officer, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagare Palike, Gandhinagar Sub-Division, Bengaluru-560009.
3. The Assistant Revenue Officer, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Gandhinagar Sub-Division, Bengaluru-560009.
…Petitioner 4. Sri. Sathyanarayana R., S/o. Late Rangappa, Aged about 62 years, R/at No.218, 7th Cross, T.Dasarahalli, Bengaluru-560057.
5. V.Varalakshmi, W/o. Late G.Narayanaswamy, Aged about 59 years, 6. N.Srinivas, S/o. Late G.Narayanaswamy, Aged about 34 years, 7. N.Arun Kumar, S/o. Late G.Narayanaswamy, Aged about 36 years, 8. Kum. Manjula D/o. Late. G.Narayanaswamy, Aged about 40 years, 9. Kum. Vinodha, D/o. Late G.Narayanaswamy, Aged about 39 years, Respondent No.5 to 9 Are R/at No.14, 18th Cross, Ranganathapura, Malleswaram, Bengaluru-560003.
10. Sri. S.Manu Kumar, S/o. R.Satyanarayana, Aged about 32 years, R/at House No.218, 7th Cross, T.Dasarahalli, Bengaluru-560057.
…Respondents (By Sri. K.N.Puttegowda, Advocate, for R1 to R3; R4 to R10 - Notice taken out through newspaper publication is accepted.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the learned V Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru in O.S.No.1372/2012 and after perusing the records to set aside the orders dated 30.01.2017, passed on I.A. under Section 151 of CPC, passed by the learned V Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru vide Annex-A.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondents 1 to 3.
2. Petitioner has sought clubbing of the suits, O.S.1372/2012 and 7627/2011 filed by him. In both the suits the subject matter is same. The trial court dismissed the application filed under section 151 CPC giving the reasons that the said application was filed at a belated stage and no purpose would be served if two suits are clubbed. However, it is observed that in both the suits subject matter is the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in both the suits recording of evidence has not yet commenced. He refers to the order sheet filed in both the suits.
4. Though the order sheet in O.S.1372/2012 shows that the said case was posted for cross-examination of DW1 on 17.11.2015, it also appears that subsequently clubbing application was filed and the trial court reserved the suit for orders on the said application. Several adjournments have been given. In O.S.7627/2011 it appears that on 28.1.2017, an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC was filed for recalling PW1. Whatever may be the stage in both the suits, since two suits pertain to same subject matter, in order to avoid conflicting judgments, the suits could be clubbed for delivering common judgment. Whether to record common evidence or not is left to the discretion of the trial court; proper decision may be taken depending on the stage in both the suits. With these observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order of the trial court is set aside. Both the suits are ordered to be clubbed.
Sd/- JUDGE ckl