- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10182 WP No. 106068 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.106068 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHARANAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: JYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HADAGALI TALUKA, DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: YAMMI NAGARAJAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, LYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HADAGALI TALUKA, DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUBASAVARAJ S.M., ADVOCATE) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HOOVINA-HADAGALI, BALLARY ON I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.140/2015 DATED 13.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.08.14 11:05:02 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10182 WP No. 106068 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hoovina-Hadagali, Ballari on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.140/2015 dated 13.09.2022 vide Annexure-D. ii. Issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.33/2018 seeking for specific performance of contract. A suit in O.S.No.140/2015 had been filed by the family members of the petitioner/defendant, for permanent injunction. An application for clubbing both the suits having been filed in I.A.No.7 came to be rejected by an order dated 13.09.2022. It is challenging the said order that the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission of Sri.Lakshman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that even if the suit filed by the respondent were to be allowed, the aspect of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10182 WP No. 106068 of 2022 possession would be irrelevant since possession would have to be handed over to the purchaser plaintiff/respondent, which is the subject matter of the suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.140/2015, and as such, he submits that the aspect of possession being relevant in both the matters, there is a common element which would require a common trial by clubbing the suits. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposes the said contention of the counsel for the petitioner by contending that, the cause of action for both the suits are different, and as such, if both the suits were clubbed together, different issues would have to be decided by the Court, and as such, he submits that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the said application. 5. Heard Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Gurubasavaraj S. M., learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the papers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10182 WP No. 106068 of 2022 6. There is no dispute as regards O.S.No.140/2015, having been filed by certain family members against the vendor of the plaintiff in O.S.No.33/2018, for injunction restraining interference with possession. O.S.No.33/2018 has been filed for specific performance of contract, which would necessarily entail the defendant handing over possession to the plaintiff. 7. In that view of the matter, the issue of possession is relevant, even if the plaintiff were to succeed in the suit for specific performance, further proceedings would have to be initiated against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.140/2015 to seek possession, if they were to succeed in O.S.No.140/2015. 8. As such, being of the opinion that possession being a very important aspect in both the matters, if the said suits are clubbed together and the matter disposed of, it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Trial Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.7. Instead of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10182 WP No. 106068 of 2022 doing so, the Trial Court has rejected the said application by imposing costs of ₹4,000/-, which is not sustainable under law. 9. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Writ of Certiorari is issued, order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hoovina-Hadagali, Ballari, dismissing I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.140/2015, is set aside. iii. Consequently, I.A.No.7 is allowed. The Trial Court, i.e., the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hoovina- Hadagali, Ballari, is directed to club both the suits in O.S.No.140/2015 and O.S.No.33/2018 and permit the parties to lead common evidence in the matters. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33