- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47158 WP No. 8484 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 8484 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. I. NAGALAMBIKE AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS D/O S. SHANTHAPPA W/O I. MAHABALESHWARAPPA ITTINA HOUSE KAIKONDARAHALLI CARMELARAM POST BENGALURU - 560 035. …PETITIONER (BY SRI V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. PAPAMMA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS D/O LATE N. CHIKKAVENKATAPPA SIDDANAPURA VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI CHIKKATIRUPATHI POST HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160. 2. SRI VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS S/O LATE CHINNAPPA BAGUR VILALGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160. 3. SRI LOKESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O VENKATESHAPPA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47158 WP No. 8484 of 2024 BAGUR VILALGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160. 4. SMT. SUJATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/O VENKATESHAPAP BAGUR VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160. 5. SRI RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE YELLAPPA BAGUR VILALGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 563 160. 6. SMT. AMMAYAMMA @ YELLAMMA D/O LATE CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BAGUR VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 8. SRI YELLAPPA S/O LATE CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS. 9. SMT. BHAYA D/O LATE KRISHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 10. SMT. PREMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47158 WP No. 8484 of 2024 11. SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 12. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 13. SMT. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 14. SMT. TEJASWINI D/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 15. SRI RAJWALA S/O LOKESH AGEDA BOUT 20 YEARS. 16. SRI RAJAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPP AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 17. SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 18. SMT. BHARATHAMMA D/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT GANGALURU VILLAGE AMUGOMDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 19. R. MOUNA @ BABY D/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 20. MOHAN S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47158 WP No. 8484 of 2024 DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT BAGARU VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK - 562 114. 21. SMT. VENKATALAKSHNAMMA W/O YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 22. PRAKASH S/O YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 23. SWATHANTHRA S/O YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS DEFENDANTS R/AT BAGURU VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 24. N. BABURAJ S/O LATE P NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR C.S, ADV.., FOR R-1; SRI B. SOMASHKAR NAIDU, ADV., FOR R-4; V/O/DTD 22.07.2024, NOTICE TO R-2, R-3 & R-5 IS H/S; R-25, R-13, R-15, R-16, R-8, R-24, R-17, R-18, R-10, R-19, R-11 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED V/O DTD 28.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-6, R-7, R-12, R-14, R-19, R-20, R-21, R-22, R-23 ARE H/S) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE ON IA NO. 1/2024 IN OS NO. 410/2022 (OLD NO. 637/2016 IS AT ANNEXURE-A. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47158 WP No. 8484 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant No.5 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 06.03.2024 passed on IA No.1/2024 in OS No.410/2022 (Old No.637/2016) by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. OS No.637/2016 (New No.410/2022) is filed by respondent No.1 herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court, Hoskote, seeking the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule properties. Contesting defendants including the petitioner herein have filed written statement in the said suit and have opposed the suit claim. IA No.1/2024 was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein in OS No.410/2022 under Section 151 of CPC to club OS No.410/2022 with OS No.2456/2022 and OS No.3121/2022. The said application was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47158 WP No. 8484 of 2024 dismissed by the Trial Court vide the order impugned and being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.5 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and submits that relief sought for in all three suits insofar as it relates to petitioner herein is common. Some of the parties and some of the suit schedule properties are also common. If the three suits are not clubbed, there are chances of contradictory findings being recorded by the Trial Court. To avoid the same, the Trial Court ought to have allowed IA No.1/2024. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement - (2004) 3 SCC 85 and Prem Lala Nahata and Another vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria - (2007) 2 SCC 551. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent has opposed the prayer made in the petition. He submits that suit in OS No.410/2022 is at the stage of defendants' evidence and in the other two suits, issues are yet to be framed. Even cause of action and relief sought for in the three suits are different. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47158 WP No. 8484 of 2024 Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting IA No.1/2024. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. The suit in OS No.410/2022 (Old No.637/2016) is filed by respondent No.1 herein seeking relief of declaration of title in respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 of suit schedule properties and also to declare that the Sale Deeds dated 21.06.2005 and 22.06.2005 are not binding on the plaintiff. 7. Perusal of the pleadings in the present case would go to show that petitioner who is defendant No.5 in OS No.637/2016 is the purchaser of the suit schedule properties and according to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and defendant Nos.1 to 4 had no right or title to execute Sale Deeds in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of the suit schedule properties. The suit in OS No.637/2016 is at the stage of recording defendants' evidence. At this stage, IA No.1/2024 was filed on behalf of the petitioner in OS No.637/2016 (New No.410/2022). Learned counsel for contesting respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that in OS No.3121/2022 there are as many as 14 defendants and in OS No.3456/2022 there are as many as 19 defendants, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47158 WP No. 8484 of 2024 whereas in the present suit, there are only five defendants. He has also pointed out that the suit schedule properties in the aforesaid three suits are different. It is also not in dispute that stages of the three cases are also different. In the other two suits, which are sought to be clubbed with OS No.410/2022, pleadings are yet to be completed, whereas OS No.410/2022, is at the stage of recording defendants' evidence. The Trial Court having appreciated all these aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed IA No.1/2024. 8. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills (supra) and Prem Lala Nahata (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter. It is trite that judgments can be relied as precedents only in the event, they are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 9. It is not in dispute that all the three suits are pending before the same Court and therefore, the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in event, three suits are not clubbed, there are chances of contradictory - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47158 WP No. 8484 of 2024 findings being recorded appears to be misconceived. Even otherwise to avoid any such situation, the Trial Court can be requested by the parties to take up all the three cases on the same day. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. According, the petition is dismissed. 10. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41