- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1777 WP No. 100501 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100501 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI ANANDRAO S/O SUBARAO HEBBAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS, R/O. HALEMENSINKAI PETE, BYADAGI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI 581106 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR S. HEGDE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT NUTAN W/O RAVINDRA BYAKOD AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 2190/A, BEHIND BLDE ENGINEERING COLLEGE, SAJJAN COLONY, ASHRAMA ROAD, BIJAPUR 586103. 2. SMT. CHETAN KALYANAPPA NELIVIGI, W/O D.C. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. 698, 16TH MAIN ROAD, 38TH BLOCK, CHOTO BHEEM PARK, 4TH T BLOCK, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad Date: 2025.02.04 15:45:13 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1777 WP No. 100501 of 2025 JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560041 3. SMT. NEHA MURIGEPPA NELIVIGI, W/O LATE MURIGEEPA NELAVAGI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. RAJENDRA NAGAR, BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS, HAVERI 581110 4. SMT. MALLIKA NELIVIGI W/O LATE MURIGEPPA NELIVIGI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. RAJENDRA NAGAR, BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS, HAVERI 581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANISH ACHARYA., ADVOCATE REP. SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY KINDLY BE PASSED QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.III UNDER SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. IN O.S.NO.142/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BYADAGI DATED 11-09-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1777 WP No. 100501 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Sri.Prashant Mathapati., learned counsel who has appeared for respondent No.2 accepts notice for respondents No.1, 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of Certiorari may kindly be passed quashing the order passed on I.A.No.III under section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.142/2022 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadagi dated 11.09.2024 vide Annexure-J to the writ petition. b. Any other appropriate order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case may please be passed. In the ends of justice and equity. 3. The petitioner had filed a suit in OS No.196 of 2020 seeking for injunction restraining the defendant therein from dispossessing the petitioner. In the said suit Respondent No.1 was Defendant No.2, Respondent No.2 was Defendant No.3, Respondents No.3 and 4 were Defendants No.4A and 4B. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1777 WP No. 100501 of 2025 Respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 had also filed another suit in OS No.142 of 2022 against the petitioner seeking for possession of the suit scheduled property therein. 4. Pertinent to observe that the suit scheduled property in both the suits are one and the same and the parties to both the suits are one and the same except one Ms.Shashikala being a party in OS No.196 of 2020 and not being a party in OS No.142 of 2022. However, the same would not make any difference since Ms.Shashikala has also expired and her legal representatives are the plaintiffs in OS No.142 of 2022 and the surviving defendants in OS No.196 of 2020. 5. In OS No.142 of 2022 which is a subsequent suit, the petitioner who is a defendant therein had filed an application seeking for clubbing of both the matters on the ground that the suit scheduled properties in both the suits are one and the same. The said - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1777 WP No. 100501 of 2025 application having been objected to by the plaintiffs in OS No.142 of 2022 came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2024. It is in that background, that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 6. Sri.Sagar.S.Hegde., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the parties to both the suits being one and the same. The properties described in the schedule in both the suits being one and the same. The relief sought for by the petitioner being for an injunction restraining dispossession as regard to said property. The relief sought for by the respondent being one for possession of the said property. The trial Court ought to have allowed the clubbing application, so as to avoid duplication of trial. 7. Sri.Prashant Mathapati., learned counsel for the respondent would however submit that the documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner are forged documents, the cause of action - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1777 WP No. 100501 of 2025 in both the suits being different. There was no requirement to club these suits and as such the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 8. Heard Sri.Sagar.S.Hegde., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Prashant Mathapati., learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused paper. 9. The parties to both the suits being one and the same is not in dispute so also the property schedule being the same is not in dispute. Whether the claim of the petitioner is based on fabricated and forged documents or otherwise the fact remains that the same also relates to the very same schedule property between the same parties. 10. The relief sought for in one suit being for permanent injunction against dispossession and in the other suit the relief sought for being one of possession. The issue involved is as regards possession and who would be entitled to. Thus, even the aspect of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1777 WP No. 100501 of 2025 whether a document is forged or not would have to be considered while considering the said relief. 11. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has misapplied itself by referring to the cause of action to be different in both the matters and that there will be no overlapping evidence. In fact, the issues raised in the subject matter being such as is there being a suit and a counter suit there would be overlapping evidence which if permitted to be taken up separately would be a waste of judicial time and also may cause delay in disposal of the matter. 12. In that view of the matter, I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Civil Judge JMFC, Byadagi in OS No.142 of 2022 on IA No.III is set aside. Consequently, IA No.III filed under Section 151 of CPC in the aforesaid suit is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1777 WP No. 100501 of 2025 iii. The suits in OS No.142 of 2022 and OS No.196 of 2020 are clubbed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with recordal of evidence in a common manner in both the suits. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40