- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42137 WP No. 24833 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 24833 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ASHA L @ ASHA CHETAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O SHRI. CHETAN KUMAR, RESIDING AT No.14, KHB COLONY JB KAVAL, CORPORATION WORD No.10, KRISHNANANDA NAGAR, BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS, BENGALURU- 560 096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANAND S. G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. K. A. MOHAMAD ALI, SON OF ABDUL KHADEER, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.29, ERUMAPALAYAM, SALEM, TAMIL NADU - 636015. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MRS. KOMALA SP. D/O SRINIVASAPURA PRAKASH, WIFE OF RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.36/1, II FLOOR, XI CROSS, I MAIN, I STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI AJITH ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42137 WP No. 24833 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 29.07.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU CCH-87 IN COM OS No.945/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri S.G. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Ajith Achappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The defendant in Com.O.S.No.945/2021 has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru. 3. The plaintiff instituted Com.O.S.No.945/2021 seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the defendant. It appears that the defendant had purchased a business for a total consideration of Rs.56,00,000/-, including stock-in-trade, furniture and other assets. Out of the said consideration, a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- was paid, and for the balance amount, cheques of different dates were issued. The present suit was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42137 WP No. 24833 of 2025 filed for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/-, being the amount covered under one of the said cheques. It is also pleaded that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811 are pending in respect of the remaining cheques. 4. In the meantime, the defendant instituted Com.O.S.No.797/2022 seeking recovery of the advance consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- on various grounds, disputing the validity of the contract. 5. The defendant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082, seeking to club Com.O.S.No.797/2022 with Com.O.S.No.945/2021. The Trial Court, having noticed various factors, including that the causes of action in both the suits are distinct and that the reliefs sought are not in conflict, held that there was no compelling circumstance to consolidate both suits for a common disposal. 6. Sri S.G. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the recovery suit pertains to the 1 N.I. Act 2 CPC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42137 WP No. 24833 of 2025 amount arising out of the agreement of sale of business, in respect of which Com.O.S.No.797/2022 is also instituted. Learned counsel further submits that Com.O.S.No.797/2022 has been instituted seeking refund of the entire amount of Rs.27,00,000/- on the ground that the agreement is void. It is further submitted that when the validity of the agreement itself is under dispute, the claim for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/-, which arises out of the very same agreement, would also emanate from the same cause of action. Hence, the cause of action in both suits arises out of the same transaction. It is contended that if both suits are not clubbed and tried together, the interests of the parties are likely to conflict. It is lastly submitted that the Trial Court, without properly considering the above factual aspects, has erred in rejecting the application. 7. Per contra, Sri Ajith Achappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that Com.O.S.No.945/2021, filed for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/-, is at an advanced stage of the defendant’s evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s suit in Com.O.S.No.797/2022 is at the stage of issuance of summons, and the respondent has raised an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42137 WP No. 24833 of 2025 objection as to its maintainability. It is also submitted that the proceedings in the said suit have been stayed by this Court in W.P. No.24917/2022. Learned counsel further submits that though the disputes involved in both suits arise out of the same transaction, the causes of action and the scope of the suits are distinct. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition for the following reasons: (i) The petitioner purchased a business ‘Unisex Saloon’ under the name and style of "Purple Tree" from the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.56,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- was paid. Towards the balance consideration, two cheques for Rs.10,00,000/- each and another cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- were issued. One cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- and another for Rs.9,00,000/- were dishonoured, and proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The respondent/plaintiff filed Com.O.S.No.945/2021 seeking recovery of Rs.10,00,000/-, being the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque. In the meantime, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42137 WP No. 24833 of 2025 petitioner/defendant instituted Com.O.S.No.797/2022 seeking refund of Rs.27,00,000/- paid as advance consideration, contending that the transfer of business was not complete. It is the case of the petitioner that the business premises were on lease, and the landlord had terminated the tenancy, thereby rendering the transaction of sale incomplete. (ii) The respondent herein preferred W.P. No.24917/2022 challenging the maintainability of Com.O.S.No.797/2022, and the proceedings therein have been stayed by this Court. It is at that stage that the petitioner filed an application seeking clubbing of both the suits. The Trial Court, upon consideration, held that though the disputes in both suits arise out of a single transaction, the reliefs sought therein are distinct. The Trial Court further observed that there was no compelling circumstance to club both suits for a common disposal. As noticed by the Trial Court, the suits are at different stages—Com.O.S.No.945/2021 being at the stage of evidence, and Com.O.S.No.797/2022 being at the stage of issuance of summons and also stayed by this Court. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly held that both suits need not be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42137 WP No. 24833 of 2025 clubbed together and accordingly rejected the application. In the considered opinion of this Court, the causes of action and the reliefs sought in both suits are distinct. Merely because the disputes arise out of the same transaction cannot be a ground for consolidation when both suits are capable of being independently adjudicated. (iii) Another aspect to be noted is that the suit in Com.O.S.No.797/2022 has yet to cross the hurdle of maintainability. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for clubbing. 8. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5