- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29193 WP No. 9963 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 9963 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI C M RAMANUJAN S/O LATE SRI. C.M. SHYAM IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, R/AT BUNGALOW NO. 2, MILLS QUARTERS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDERS SRI. LOKESH K., S/O SRI. G. KENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 26/A, PAPAYA GARDEN, 4TH CROSS, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. SRI. N. VENKATESH, S/O LATE NAGALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT 3RD MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, KATTIGRUPPA EAST, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESH PRASAD R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B.L. VEERABADHRE GOWDA S/O LATE LAKKANNA GOWDA, AGED 87 YEARS, R/AT NO. 492C, 7TH BLOCK WEST, JAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 082. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29193 WP No. 9963 of 2026 2. SRI. SURESH, S/O SRI. S. VEERABADRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 492-C, 7TH BLOCK, WEST JAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 082 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANTHA NARAYANA B N., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, CALLING FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 2816/2023 AND O.S. NO. 6067/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-2), THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 09/03/2026 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED ON I.A. NO. 2 IN O.S. NO. 2816/2023 AND I.A. NO. 4 IN O.S. NO. 6067/2023 (ANNEXURE-D) AND (ANNEXURE-D1) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29193 WP No. 9963 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 4 dated 09.03.2026 in O.S.No.2816/2023 and O.S.No.6067/2023 respectively on the file of I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.2816/2023 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner's suit pertains to Site No.5, carved out of Survey No.6/1 of Kattriguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Respondent No.1 herein subsequently filed a suit in O.S.No.6067/2023 against the petitioner and his GPA holders on 16.09.2023 seeking permanent injunction in respect of different property claiming it to be Site No.6 formed in Survey No.6/1. The said property is described as measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 80 feet, totally measuring 2,400 square feet with entirely different boundaries. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29193 WP No. 9963 of 2026 The respondent herein has filed I.A.No.2 to club both the suits. The trial Court by order impugned has passed an order clubbing the suit. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court. 3. I.A No.4 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.6067/2023 under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to club the suit with O.S.No.2816/2023. I.A.No.2 is filed under Section 151 CPC in O.S.No.2816/2023 to club the suit with O.S.No.6067/2023. The Court has allowed the IAs observing that O.S.No.2816/2023 filed in respect of Site No.5, carved out of Sy.No.6/1 of Kattriguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk stating that the plaintiff purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 09.09.1971 from his vendor, Smt.Kamamma. Defendant No.1 in O.S No.2816/2023 filed OS No.6017/2023 against the plaintiffs stating that he is the owner of Site No.6 formed in Sy.No.6/1 of Kattriguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk stating that defendant No.1 purchased the said property under registered sale deed dated 22.09.1971 from his vender Smt. Kamamma. Both parties are claiming that they have purchased the property from common vendor. In both the suits, the Court has passed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29193 WP No. 9963 of 2026 an order of status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property. Issues framed in both the suits are common. Parties in both suits are common. Both parties are claiming that they purchased the property from the common vendor. As such if the suits are tried separately, it would lead to conflict in judgments. On the contrary, if the suits are clubbed and common evidence is recorded, it will be easy for the Court to decide the suits effectively and may save valuable time of the Court. Hence the Court has passed an order allowing IA No.4 and IA No.2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court ought not to have clubbed the suits. It is submitted that the suit schedule property in both the suits is not one and the same. His property is Site No.5 and in the other case the property is Site No.6. Even the measurement of the total area and boundaries are not same. As such the Court ought not to have clubbed the suit. It is submitted that the ultimate aim of the respondent is to identify Site No.5 as Site No.6 and thereby lay a false claim over the petitioner's property by creating confusion. It is stated that respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29193 WP No. 9963 of 2026 No.1 seeks to take advantage of clubbing to conflate the two distinct properties and the evidence relating to them, to the grave detriment of the petitioner. The Court ought to have recognized his malafide design and ought to have rejected the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that in both the suits the parties are common and they have purchased the property from common vendor claiming injunction against each other. Considering all this, the Court has clubbed the suits and there is no infirmity with the said order. 6. Having heard the learned Counsels on either side and perused the material on record. Both the suits were filed claiming injunction against each other. According to them both properties have purchased from a common vendor and both of them are seeking injunction against each other. Considering the litigation and the manner in which they are fighting, the Court has clubbed the suit, so that the court would be able to save the judicial time. This court is not able to understand how the prejudice is caused to the plaintiff by clubbing the suits and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29193 WP No. 9963 of 2026 clubbing is in the interest of the parties and finality to the litigation. Hence, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5