- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35086 WP No. 23305 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23305 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. CHANDRIKA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY, W/O LATE RAMASAWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.216/1, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YATHISHA K.J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KEERTHANA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O. LATE KRISHNAKUMAR RESIDING AT NO.216/1, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. 2. SRI. HARSHITH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNAKUMAR, RESIDING AT NO.216/1, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35086 WP No. 23305 of 2025 3. SRI. VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.216/1, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. 4. SMT. VIJAYAKUMARI N, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY W/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA S, RESIDING AT N.166/25, 7TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IX ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-05) AT BENGALURU ON THE IA FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS NO. 3695/2022 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35086 WP No. 23305 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 30.06.2025 by which the concerned court clubs two suits one in O.S.No.3695/2022 and the other O.S.No.3887/2022; one is filed seeking partition of the joint family properties between the family members. The parties are the same in the other suit, but the suit is for eviction. The suit schedule property is the same. The concerned court passes the following order: " ORDER This application has been filed by the plaintiff under section 151 of CPC in order to club the above suit along with O.S.No.3887/2022 filed by the 2nd defendant Chandrika against these plaintiffs. The application is annexed by the affidavit of plaintiff No.1 and 2 wherein they contended that, the present suit has been filed for the declaration and other consequential relief with respect to the suit schedule property. In the same way, the defendant also filed suit for partition and separate possession with respect to the same schedule property in O.S.No.3887/2022 which was pending before this Court itself. The suit of the 2nd defendant is for partition and separate possession. In both the suits the subject matter of the property as well as the parties are one and the same, if at all the above matters are heard and decided separately. There is every chance of conflicting judgments and both the parties are relying upon the same set of evidence. Accordingly, prayed to allow the application in the ends of justice. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35086 WP No. 23305 of 2025 On the other hand, the defendant No.2 filed objections stating that, the application itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the facts. The present application has been filed to club the suit. The suit of the defendant No.2 is partition and separate possession. However, the suit of the plaintiff is for eviction and injunction. The nature of both the suits are entirely different. In O.S.No.3887/2022 the Court has already granted interim injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the defendant No.2 in the schedule property. The defendant No.2 is none other than the mother in law of the plaintiff and elder sister of father of the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 is not a tenant of the property of the property. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the suit are entirely different. Therefore, on that ground alone the application is to be rejected. Heard both the sides. As contended by the defendants O.S.No.3695/2022 is filed to declare that, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession of the schedule B property and also for the consequential relief of the injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the schedule properties. The plaintiff in that suit also sought for directing the defendants to deliver the vacant physical possession of the schedule C and D property and put the plaintiffs in physical possession of the same. The schedule itself shows that, schedule B, c & D properties are in possession of the plaintiffs as well as defendants No.1 and 2. As contended by the defendants the present suit is not for eviction but also for declaration and permanent injunction. The consequential prayer of physical possession is also claimed in the suit. However, on perusal of the entire plaint averments it has been categorically stated that, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the schedule property and 2nd defendant has specifically denied the relationship of tenant and landlord between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35086 WP No. 23305 of 2025 Further in the suit filed by the 2nd defendant she has claimed the partition and separate possession with respect to the suit schedule property. The rights of the 2nd defendant over the suit schedule properties can be determined in the suit for partition. Further, the relationship of the landlord and tenant can also be determined in both the suits. It is to be noted that, whether the person who has been in possession of the schedule property as a tenant is related to the plaintiff or the family of the plaintiff is important in order to determine that issue. Here one thing is clear both parties are litigating for same schedule properties. Even though the relief claimed in both the suits are different and schedule properties are one and the same. More than that, clubbing is only for conducting the joint trial and not for passing the common judgment. Even if the Court clubbed both the suits, judgments in both the suits will be different and issues will be decided differently. Even though the present suit is posted for evidence of the plaintiff Issues have mot been framed in the suit for partition. Under the above circumstances this Court is of the opinion that, that, no harm will be caused to any person if the application is allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A. filed by the plaintiff under section 151 of the CPC is hereby allowed. The suit in O.S.No.3887/2022 is clubbed with O.S.No.3695/2022. For evidence. Call on 11.08.2025." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35086 WP No. 23305 of 2025 2. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance narrated of, the suit schedule property being the same, the order passed by the concerned court clubbing both the suits does not warrant any interference, as it does not brood any perversity or error apparent for this court to excise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition thus lacking in merit stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: BHK