- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4537 WP No. 51276 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 51276 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. Y.R.VISHWANATH S/O LATE Y.B.RUDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O PUMP HOUSE ROAD, BELUR-573115, HASSAN DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE DANEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. SHIVAKUMAR B.D., S/O DANEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOLE BEEDI, BELUR-573115, HASSAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (V/O/D 07/02/21, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON IA NO.VIII DATED: 14.10.2019 IN O.S.NO.253/2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BELUR VIDE ANENXUER-A BY ALLOWING IA NO.8 IN O.S.NO.253/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BELUR AT ANNEXURE-G. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4537 WP No. 51276 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.8 filed by the defendant seeking clubbing of the case along with O.S.No.119/2019 in O.S.No.253/2013 dated 14.10.2019, by the Civil Judge and JMFC. at Belur, whereby the Trial Court had dismissed the application, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court. 2. The respondents herein have filed O.S.No.253/2013 seeking the relief of permanent injunction where the petitioner is the defendant in the suit. Thereafter, O.S.No.119/2019 is filed by the petitioner herein seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. During the course of the evidence, the defendant had filed the present application stating that both the cases may be clubbed. The Trial Court had dismissed the said application. 3. While dismissing the application, the Trial Court had observed that the O.S.No.253/2013 is at the fag end of the trial whereas in O.S.No.119/2019 even the written statement is not - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4537 WP No. 51276 of 2019 filed by the defendant and the Trial Court had observed that this application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. Further, the issues in both the suits are different and accordingly, I.A. is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant submits that when the parties are the same and the suit schedule properties are one and the same, to save the valuable time of the Court, the Trial Court ought to have clubbed both the suits and common evidence could have been let in. It is submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court is not a well considered one. 5. The notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 returned as not claimed, this Court by vide order dated 07.07.2021 had held service of notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 sufficient. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The first suit that is O.S.No.253/2013 is filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction where the petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit. Thereafter, the defendant in O.S.No.253/2013 had filed O.S.No.119/2019 seeking declaration and injunction and the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4537 WP No. 51276 of 2019 later suit is at the stage where the written statement is yet to be filed and the first suit is at the fag end of the trial. Second suit is a comprehensive suit where the issues that are to be dealt with by the Trial Court are altogether different and the first one is the suit for bare injunction and the plaintiff who had kept quite from the year 2013 till 2019 without seeking the relief of declaration had filed the suit at a later point of time, now he cannot seek the relief that both suits have to be clubbed where the stage of proceedings of the both the suits are at different levels. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere to the well considered order. Hence, this Court is passing the following, ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18