- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28190 WP No. 14858 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 14858 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: THE TELECOM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., #43, BELAKU, RAILWAY PARELLEL ROAD, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. C.V.MANJUNATHA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GUBBI SWAMY S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAVITHA D/O. LATE VEERANNA, W/O. SHANKRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. NO.25, NEAR BASAVA BHAVAN CHANDRAMOULESHWARA LAYOUT, MADAGONDANAHALLI ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN-561 203 2. SRI. VEERANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. AKKAYYAMMA, W/O. LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O. THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28190 WP No. 14858 of 2026 3. SRI ANAND SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. JAYASHRI W/O. LATE ANAND AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4. SRI. ACHAL S/O. LATE ANAND, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 5. MANVITH GOWDA S/O. LATE ANAND, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. JAYASHRI 6. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O. LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.3,4,5,& 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 157 7. M/S. KANTHI PROPERTIES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM NO.13/1, G-BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 092 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 28.04.2026 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI ON I.A.NO. XXI IN O.S.NO.609/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A. NO. XXI FILED UNDER SECTION 10 OF CPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY (ANNEXURE-A). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28190 WP No. 14858 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XXI in O.S.No.609/2014 dated 28.04.2026 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. 2. The petitioner before this Court is the defendant No.4 in the suit. The respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed O.S.No.609/2014 before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, seeking partition of the 1/4th share of the suit schedule property. It is the case that one Smt.Kempamma along with others had filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of several properties before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, against Smt.Ammayamma and others in O.S.No.1618/2006. The father of the respondent No.1/plaintiff was arrayed as defendant No.13 and after his death his legal heirs were brought on record. The plaintiff therein was brought on record as defendant No.13(b). The petitioner who is the defendant No.4 in O.S.No.609/2014 and defendant No.27 in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28190 WP No. 14858 of 2026 O.S.No.1618/2006 had filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to stay the proceedings in O.S.No.609/2014 which is pending before the same Court in O.S.No.1618/2006 in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially covered in the present suit. 3. The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed I.A.No.XXI. While dismissing the I.A., the trial Court had observed that the issues involved in O.S.No.1618/2006 might be that whether the suit schedule properties (64 items) are the ancestral and joint family properties of legal heirs of Late Sri.Hanumantharayappa. The issues involved in the present case are “whether the suit schedule properties (2 items) are the joint family properties of children of Late Sri.Veeranna.” Even the present suit is decided without clubbing with O.S.No.1618/2006, the rights of defendant No.4 will not get affected. Moreover, in O.S.No.1618/2006, Late Sri.Veeranna has specifically pleaded that the suit schedule properties are his self acquired properties. Since both the suits are pending before the trial Court, there is no need to club both the suits. Moreover, O.S.No.1618/2006 is pending for impleading of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28190 WP No. 14858 of 2026 proposed defendants. The present suit is pending for cross- examination of DW-1. Therefore, it will not be fair to club both the suits at this stage. 4. The court has further observed that, though the petitioner/defendant No.4 is party in O.S.No.1618/2006, he has not filed similar application at the earliest stage. Even if O.S.No.1618/2006 is decreed, the plaintiff in the said suit and the family members will get share in the properties which are purchased by defendant No.4. If O.S.No.1618/2006 is dismissed and the present suit is decreed, still defendant No.4 is bound by the decree that he has to give share to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the suit schedule properties are purchased by the defendant No.4 alone. When such being the case, there is no need to stay further proceedings at this stage. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of Late Sri.Veeranna. In O.S.No.1618/2006 also, they have pleaded that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Late Sri.Veeranna. When such being the case, the application - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28190 WP No. 14858 of 2026 deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court had miserably failed to appreciate the principles laid down in Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is aimed to avoid possible divergent findings which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Not appreciating the said provision, the trial Court prejudicially dismissed the application which is contrary to law and procedure. It is submitted that in O.S.No.1618/2006 Item Nos. 62, 63 and 64 of the suit schedule properties are the subject matter of O.S.No.609/2014 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.609/2014 is the defendant No.13(b) in O.S.No.1618/2006. Both the suits are for partition and both the suits are pending before the same Court. It is submitted that the trial Court had failed to take note of the fact that the subsequent suit wherein the matter in issue in the previously instituted suit is directly and substantially in issue is same in the subsequently instituted suit and the trial Court failed to understand that allowing the parallel proceedings to continue would lead to divergent findings and judgments would in turn - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28190 WP No. 14858 of 2026 lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, the trial Court ought to have allowed I.A. filed by the petitioner. The trial Court ought to have stayed further proceedings till disposal of O.S.No.1618/2006. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. Two suits are filed by the parties i.e., O.S.No.609/2014 and O.S.No.1618/2006. The father of the plaintiff in O.S.No.609/2014 is defendant in O.S.No.1618/2006 and after his death, the plaintiff in the suit was also impleaded as defendant No.13(b). It is the case of the plaintiff that both the cases are pending on the file of the same Court and both the cases cannot be independently go and one suit has to be decided after the other one. It is also an admitted fact that from the last 12 years, the petitioner has not taken any steps and now, he has come before the Court seeking stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.609/2014 till O.S.No.1618/2006 is decided. This Court do not find any bonafides in the application filed by the petitioner. In fact, it appears that for the best reasons known to the petitioner also to delay the proceedings, this application is filed. Hence, in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28190 WP No. 14858 of 2026 considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10