Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45258 (KAR)

KATTEPPA S/O ADIVEPPA NARTI v. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O MUDAKAPA ALIAS GONEPPA LINGSHETTY

WP/101075/2023 · 2025-04-09

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6313 WP No. 101075 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101075 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. KATTEPPA S/O ADIVEPPA NARTI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREMALLUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 2. BASAVARAJ S/O ADIVEPPA NARTI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREMALLUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 3. SHANKRAPPA S/O ADIVEPPA NARTI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREMALLUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 4. HALAPPA S/O ADIVEPPA NARTI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREMALLUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S.NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O MUDAKAPPA @ GONEPPA LINGSHETTY, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG. 2. SMT. RENAVVA W/O RAMANNA BATTUR, AGE: 58 YEARS ,OCC: HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6313 WP No. 101075 of 2023 R/O: DEVANUR, TQ: KUNDAGOAL, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SMT. SUSHILA W/O NAGANAGOUDA KASHPPAGOUDAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHIRAGUPPI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADAN Y.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Chandrashekhar S.Nagashetti., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Madan Y.Deshpande., counsel for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon on I.A. No.XIV in O.S. No.63/2018 vide Annexure-F. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6313 WP No. 101075 of 2023 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No.63/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shiggaon. The defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement. The parties led evidence, documents were marked. When the matter was set down for arguments, defendant No.5 moved an application in I.A. No.XIV under Section 151 of CPC for clubbing of O.S. No.247/2022 along with O.S.No.63/2018. The plaintiff objected for the same. The Trial Court vide order dated:30.01.2023 dismissed the application. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. 6. Sri.Chandrashekhar S.Nagashetti., counsel for the petitioners submits that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, defendant No.5 was constrained to move an application for clubbing of the suits. He argued by saying that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6313 WP No. 101075 of 2023 By way of answer to this contention, Counsel Sri.Madan Y.Deshpande., submits that the suit was posted for arguments, moving application for clubbing of the suits was not proper. He submits that the Trial Court rightly rejected the application. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 8. Suffice it to note that the present suit is one for partition and separate possession. It is not in dispute that when the suit was set down for arguments, defendant No.5 attempted for clubbing of the suits. No doubt, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, clubbing is essential, however, what is required to be considered is the stage of the suit. Admittedly, the present suit i.e., O.S.No.63/2018 was set down for arguments and the other suit was filed in 2022, hence, the request of defendant No.5 to club O.S.No.247/2022 at the arguments stage cannot be sustained. The Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6313 WP No. 101075 of 2023 Because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of and the interim order, if any, granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP/RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37