- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4528 WP No. 52221 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 52221 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT RAZIA BEGUM W/O SHRI SYED MAHABOOB PRESENT AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO 2, 3RD A MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT NO. 65/A, M.S.PALYA EXTENSION, JARAKABANDE KAVAL, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 097 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI KHALID S/O SHRI MOHAMMED YAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.15, 1ST STREET, ‘E’ MAIN, BEHIND BINNY MILL, GANGANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 032 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MOHAMMED NASIRUDDIN, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED BY THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-25) BENGALURU CITY O.S.NO.193/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 10 OF THE CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4528 WP No. 52221 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed to set aside the impugned order in OS.No.193/2014 dated 17.10.2019 passed by III Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru which is filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC. 2. The petitioner herein had filed OS.No.26750/2011 seeking the relief of declaration, declaring that she is not a tenant of the premises and the sale deed dated 30.04.2005 is not binding on her. The defendant No.11 in the suit had filed OS.No.193/2014 seeking a declaration that he is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule premises and to direct the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the property and further to hold an enquiry into the past/future mesne profits under order 12 rule 20 of the CPC. This suit is of the year 2014. In the year 2019, the present application is filed by the plaintiff in OS No.26750/2011 in OS No.193/2014 under Section 10 of CPC to stay the proceedings in OS.No.193/2014 pending disposal of OS.No.26750/2011.The court by order impugned had dismissed the application and while dismissing the application the court has observed that in the suit the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4528 WP No. 52221 of 2019 plaintiff has already been examined as PW-1 and the matter was posted for cross-examination of the defendants and plaintiff has also got 11 documents marked in his evidence. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of defendant, the defendant has started pressing for hearing on I.A No.1 filed for staying the proceedings. The suit scheduled properties in OS No.26750/2011 are two in number showing land as well as residential premises. While the suit schedule premises in the suit comprises of limited area measuring in all 2250 sq.ft. Suit schedule ‘A’ property in OS.No.26750/2011, shows total area measuring 7250 sq.ft. This shows that the suit scheduled properties are different in both the suits. In addition, there is only one plaintiff and defendant in this suit, while there are 11 defendants in OS No.26750/2011. When the parties are not the same, the suit scheduled properties are different the suit cannot be stayed and accordingly dismissed the application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the court ought to have stayed the proceedings in OS No.193/2014 as in both the suits, the suit schedule property is one and the same. It is submitted that the court had held - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4528 WP No. 52221 of 2019 that these are 2 different properties, he submits that the rent control proceedings that are initiated were also stayed considering the pending OS.No.26750/2011 between the parties. He also submits that the suit OS No.26750/2011 is now dismissed against that he has preferred RFA and that is pending consideration. It is submitted that the court ought to have allowed the application. Though a caveat is filed on behalf the respondents, there is no representation on their behalf even on the last occasion, hence this matter is posted today as ‘Part heard’. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. This Court has perused the plaint in both the suits and the relief that is sought and the reasons that are recorded by the trial court and the fact that OS.No.26750/2011 is already dismissed and against that RFA is filed and pending consideration. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court the trial Court had rightly considered the application under section 10 of CPC and coupled with this, the disposal of the suit, this Court is not inclined to stay the proceedings in OS.No.193/2014. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4528 WP No. 52221 of 2019 6. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5