- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27078 W.P. No.2644/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.2644/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESHA S/O SOMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT: DODDAMANE, AGRICULTURAL FARM KAGGALIKAVAL, NAMBIHALLI VILLAGE DANDGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573116. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BHARATHI M, ADV., FOR SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. S. SATHISHA S/O SOMEGOWDA, MAJOR R/AT DODDAMANE AGRICULTURAL FARM KAGGALIKAVAL, NAMBIHALLI VILLAGE DANDGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573116. 2. SMT. RADHA D/O C. SOMEGOWDA W/O NARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.281A, 9TH A MAIN 40TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560009. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27078 W.P. No.2644/2022 3. SRI. C. SOMEGOWDA DEAD BY LR’S. 3(a) SMT. DAYAMANI .S D/O C. SOMEGOWDA (LATE) AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1290, MRHB COLONY VIJAYANAGARA, MAGADI CHORD ROAD BENGALURU 560040. 3(b) SMT. ASHA W/O MURTHY D/O C. SOMEGOWDA R/AT DOOR NO.1290, MRHB COLONY VIJAYANAGARA, MAGADI CHORD ROAD BENGALURU-560040. 3(c) SMT. NEENA .S W/O ANIL D/O C. SOMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1290, MRHB COLONY VIJAYANAGARA, MAGADI CHORD ROAD BENGALURU-560040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1 AND R3(a) SRI. BALUVINAY T.V. ADV., FOR R2 SRI. SUNIL M.V. ADV., FOR R3(c) R3(b) IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2022 ON I.A.NO.37 AND ORDER DATED 07.12.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.189/2002 AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2022 ON I.A.NO.37 AND ORDER DATED 07.12.2021 IN SO FAR AS DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE IN O.S.NO.189/2002 PASSED IN O.S.NO.189/2002 BY LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27078 W.P. No.2644/2022 JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, AT ANNEXURE-A AND B AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW I.A.NO.37 FILED BY THE PETITIONER /PLAINTIFF UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.01.2022 passed on IA.No.37 and order dated 07.12.2021 in OS.No.189/2002 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Smt.Bharathi M., learned counsel for Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has filed a suit in OS.No.189/2002 for a relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs in respect of certain properties. It is submitted that respondent No.3(c) herein has filed OS.No.57/2013 for a relief of partition and separate possession with regard to certain properties, claiming to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27078 W.P. No.2644/2022 be joint family properties. The trial Court, vide order dated 07.12.2021 ordered to consolidate both suits and further ordered to record common evidence in both the suits. It is further submitted that the nature of suits is altogether different. The petitioner is claiming that the properties in his suit are self acquired properties, therefore, consolidation and order for common evidence is impermissible. Hence, an application was filed to modify the order dated 07.12.2021, which was erroneously rejected by the trial Court. It is also submitted that consolidation would result in unnecessary delay in the disposal of the suit filed by the petitioner and the issues being different, both suits cannot be consolidated, and they are required to be tried independently. Accordingly, she seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.C.S.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3(a), Sri.Baluvinay T.V., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Sunil M.V., learned counsel for respondent No.3(c) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27078 W.P. No.2644/2022 support the order of the trial Court and submit that the subject matter in both suits is one and the same, parties in both the suits are common, though the reliefs claimed are different. It is submitted that if the trial in both the suits are allowed to go independently, then there is a likelihood of divergent opinion being recorded in both the suits which will lead to further complications. Therefore, it would be appropriate to try both the suits by one Court and record its finding as per the prayers sought in the suits. Hence, they seek to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. It is to be noticed that the petitioner herein has filed OS.No.189/2002 seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties along with other consequential reliefs. The respondent No.3(c), on the other hand, filed a suit in OS.No.57/2013 seeking partition and separate possession of various properties, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27078 W.P. No.2644/2022 claiming to be the joint family properties in which she being a co-parcener, is entitled to a share. The trial Court vide order dated 07.12.2021 in OS.No.189/2002 ordered for consolidation of the suits and for joint trial. The order sheet indicates that the parties had proceeded to record evidence in part and thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking modification of the order dated 07.12.2021 on the ground that the reliefs sought in both the suits are different, pleadings are different, and if both suits are tried together and common evidence is recorded, it would lead to complications. It is further to be noticed that the trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application by recording the reason that the properties involved in both the suits are common, parties are also the same, notwithstanding the difference in the reliefs sought. In order to avoid the conflicting opinion, the trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that the order dated 07.12.2021 does not call - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27078 W.P. No.2644/2022 for any modification and proceeded to reject the application. I do not find any error in the impugned order. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the properties claimed by him in OS.No.189/2002 are self- acquired properties which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings and the petitioner is required to prove the same in accordance with law. However, the very same contention can be urged by him in O.S.No.57/2013, wherein he has already filed his written statement. Taking the stand that these properties are self-acquired property, I am of the view that no prejudice would cause to the petitioner if the order is upheld. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. 7. Learned counsel Sri.C.S.Prasanna Kumar points out the observations in order dated 07.12.2021 that the parties would co-operate for early disposal of the suit within a period of three months and seeks to issue - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27078 W.P. No.2644/2022 direction to that effect. In my considered view, no mandamus can be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit in a time bound manner. However, the trial Court shall take note of the undertaking given by the parties which is recorded by the trial Court in order dated 07.12.2021 and consider the early disposal of the suit. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27