- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.36878/2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. P.R. DINESH S/O LATE P.B.R. ANAND AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.34, 2ND MAIN ROAD GAVIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN & SRI. ABHISHEK M.K. ADV., FOR SRI. SANDEEP PATIL, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. P.B. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SRI. P.R. BASAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.35, RANGARAO ROAD SHANKARAPURA BENGALURU-560 004. 2. SRI. P.B. EKAMBARESWAR S/O LATE SRI. P.R. BASAVAPPA SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR'S. 2(a) SMT. P.S. AMBIKA W/O LATE P.B. EKAMBARESHWAR AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.408, 8TH B MAIN 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 2(b) SRI. BHUSHAN PATRE S/O LATE EKAMBARESHWARA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.408, 8TH B MAIN 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011. [AMENDED CAUSE TITLE VIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025] 3. M/S. P.R. BASAVAPPA & SONS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRMS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. P.B.R. ANAND R/AT NO.21/22, 3RD MAIN ROAD NEW TARAGUPET BENGALURU-560 002. 4. SMT. P.R. SHANTHA W/O LATE SRI. P.B.R. ANAND AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.34, 2ND MAIN ROAD GAVIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 019. 5. SMT. P.R. CHANDRAPRABHA D/O LATE SRI. P.B.R. ANAND AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.34, 2ND MAIN ROAD GAVIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 019. 6. M/S. P.R.B. AGENCIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. P.B.R. ANAND NO.21/22, 3RD MAIN ROAD N.T. PET, BENGALURU-560 002. 7. SRI. P.B. NIRANJAN KUMAR S/O. LATE SRI. P.R. BASAVAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.35, RANGA RAO ROAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 SHANKARAPURAM BENGALURU-560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RACHANA BHARADHWAJ R, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. K.K. VASANTH, ADV., FOR R2 PRO'SD R2(a) - SD R3, R4, R5, R6 ARE SERVED V/O/DT. NOTICE TO R7 IS D/W V/O/DT. 7/7/2025, NOTICE TO R2(b) H/S) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.12 FILED UNDER SECTION 10 OF CPC DTD:7.4.2018 IN O.S.NO.4269/2000 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU [PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A]. CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN IA NO.12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DEFENDANT NO.3 AND 2[A] DTD17.7.2017 SEEKING TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE O.S.NO.4269/2000 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H] & ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.06.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.04.2018 passed on I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.4269/2000 by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Trial Court'). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 2. Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit for dissolution of respondent No.3-firm and also sought for an order to render the correct and true account of the firm from 31.03.1988 till disposal of the suit. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), seeking to stay the further proceedings in the suit till disposal of the special leave to appeal pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that one Dr.P.M.Prabhudev has filed a suit for partition which includes the subject matter of the present suit. It is further submitted that the grandmother of the petitioner also filed a suit for partition on the ground that all the properties of late P.R.Basavappa were not included in the suit. Both the suits were clubbed and decreed by the Trial Court holding that all the properties are the joint family properties. It is also submitted that the judgment and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 decree of the Trial Court was challenged by the father of the petitioner and after his death, the petitioner and other legal representatives have continued the appeal. The Appellate Court recorded a clear finding that item Nos.1 and 2 of ‘B’ schedule property and properties in ‘C’ schedule in those suits, are the properties of the partnership firm and are not available for partition. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 has challenged the judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.10700-10702/2014 and the issue involved in the present suit filed by the respondent No.1 and the earlier suits which is the subject matter of the special leave to appeal, is one and the same and till the disposal of the special leave to appeal, this suit cannot be proceeded. It is contended that the respondent No.1 is specifically contending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the finding of this Court in the regular first appeal with regard to item Nos.1 and 2 of ‘B’ schedule property and the properties in ‘C’ schedule are the joint family - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 properties is incorrect and now he cannot contend that the partnership firm needs to be dissolved and the correct accounts are required to be rendered by the defendants. It is further contended that any finding recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the partnership firm and its properties, would have a bearing on the present suit and till the same is decided, the suit cannot be proceeded. It is also contended that the Trial Court, under the impugned order has made an observation that the evidence can go on, however, passing of the judgment can be deferred till the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides the appeal. Such an order is unsustainable and hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 3. Per contra, Smt.Rachana Bharadwaj R., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the issue involved in the present suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is against the partnership firm as well as the other partners and the earlier dispute between the parties is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 with regard to the partition and separate possession and the subject matter in these two proceedings are distinct and hence, the suit cannot be stayed. Therefore, she seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S.No.4269/2000 against M/s.P.R.Basavappa and sons- respondent No.3 and others for the relief of dissolution of the partnership firm and for an order to render the correct and true account of the firm from 31.03.1988 till the disposal of the suit. The petitioner-defendant No.2 in the said suit filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC seeking prayer to stay all the further proceedings in the above suit till the disposal of the Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.10700-10702/2014 pending before the Hon’ble - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 Supreme Court. The primary contention of the defendant Nos.2(a) and 3 in the aforesaid suit is that the subject matter in the present suit and the earlier suit filed by Dr.P.M.Prabhudev and Smt. Neelamma in O.S.No.3350/1991 and O.S.No.4988/1991, is the same. It is contended that in the aforesaid two suits, the relief of partition was sought which was granted by the Trial Court under the common judgment dated 18.08.2005 and later, this Court in RFA Nos.1722/2005, 1723/2005 and 537/2006, vide judgment dated 19.04.2013 has recorded a finding that in the suit filed by P.B.R.Anand, the property is mentioned in ‘A’ schedule and in O.S.No.3350/1991 as item No.3 of ‘B ‘ schedule, which are the only properties available for partition and further observed that the properties at item Nos.1 and 2 of ‘B’ schedule and the properties in ‘C’ schedule are the properties of the firm and are not available for partition. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 herein filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 Nos.10700-10702/2014 which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. The only dispute in the present petition is with regard to staying of further proceedings in the suit filed by the respondent No.1 till the disposal of special leave to appeal pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is to be noticed that the earlier suit in O.S.No.3350/1991 is filed by Dr.P.M.Prabhudev and O.S.No.4988/1991 is filed by Smt. Neelamma and they are not the parties in O.S.No.4269/2000. It is further to be noticed that the earlier suits filed by Dr.P.M.Prabhudev and Neelamma are for partition and separate possession of various properties of late P.R.Basavappa. The said suits were decreed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court modified the said decree to some extent and the special leave to appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case on hand, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit for dissolution of the respondent No.3-firm and also seeking correct accounts of the firm from other partners of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 firm on certain grounds. The issue involved in both the proceedings are substantively different and the parties to the proceedings are also different. Dr.P.M.Prabhudev and Neelamma are not parties to the suit filed by the respondent No.1 for dissolution of the firm and other relief. It is also to be noticed that merely because the earlier three properties of the firm are found in the partition suit, it cannot be a ground to stay the proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.4269/2000. It is to be noticed that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the present suit claiming to be the partners of the respondent No.3-firm and sought the relief of dissolution and to render correct accounts. The cause of action shown in the present suit is distinct from the cause of action of the earlier suits which has culminated into an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A perusal of the plaint averments in the present suit clearly indicates that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are making an assertion that the petitioner and other partners of the respondent No.3-firm - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 have misused the goodwill of the firm and have not shown any accounts to the other partners and based on such premise, a suit was filed seeking for dissolution of the firm and for correct accounts. In my considered view, the present proceedings in O.S.No.4269/2000 pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, is not an issue which is directly and substantively in issue in a previously instituted suit between the parties nor directly or substantively an issue pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. It would be useful to refer to paragraph 8 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES Vs. C. PARAMESHWARA1, which reads as under: "8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same 1 AIR 2005 SC 242 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical." - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26673 W.P. No.36878/2018 8. Section 10 of the CPC provides for stay of the proceedings with the trial of any suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. In the case on hand, there are no two suits pending between the same parties and the issue involved in the earlier suit which was decreed, later modified by the First Appellate Court and now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not directly or substantively an issue in the pending suit. Hence, invoking Section 10 of the CPC would not arise. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1