- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4106 WP No. 1870 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1870 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PADDAMMA W/O LATE DEVARAJU, AGED 61 YEARS OLD, R/O CHOWDAIAHNAPALYA, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST. – 572 140 REP. BY SPA HOLDER, SRI. PUTTARAJU D., S/O LATE DEVARAJU, AGED 50 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHAN @ MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O CHOWDAIAHNA PALYA URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DIST. – 572 140. 2. ANANDA @ ANANDA THEERTHA, S/O LATE SRINIVASACHAR AGED 80 YEARS, 3. MURULIDHARA S/O LATE SRINIVASACHAR AGED 72 YEARS, 4. PADMA D/O RAGHAVENDRACHAR K. S., AGED 69 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4106 WP No. 1870 of 2026 5. S. K. PRAHALLADACHAR S/O LATE SRINIVASACHAR AGED 84 YEARS, 6. BHAGAVANDAS, S/O LATE SRINIVASACHAR AGED 80 YEARS, 7. K.S. VENKATESH S/O LATE SRINIVASACHAR, AGED 78 YEARS, 8. SMT. RAMADEVI W/O K. V. SUBBACHAR, AGED 74 YEARS, 9. K. S. SUBBANNACHAR, S/O SRINIVASACHAR AGED 72 YEARS, 10. K. S. SUDHA D/O SRINIVASACHAR, AGED 70 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 10 ARE R/O BRAMAHANARA BEEDHI, KYATHASANDRA, TUMAKURU, PIN – 572 201. 11. SMT. ROOPA N. S. W/O DR. M. RAMESH R/O “SHREYA NILAYA”, 7TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGARA, TUMAKURU – 572 201. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2025 PASSED ON IA NO.8 FILED U/S 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.111/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-M, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4106 WP No. 1870 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.111/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2025, whereby the application-I.A.No.VIII filed by respondent No.3 seeking to club the present suit in O.S.No.111/2021 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru along with O.S.No.317/2018 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru was allowed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru by holding as under: ORDERS ON IA No.VIII The Advocate for defendant No.3 filed IA No.VIII under Section 151 of CPC to club this suit with O.S.No.317/2018 to record common evidence. In support of IANo. VIII, the defendant No.3 filed affidavit and sworn that the civil miscellaneous 124/2024 filed before Hon'ble Prl. District and Session Court to transfer O.S.no.111/2021 which was pending before II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru which was filed by the present defendant No.1. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous was allowed, the O.S.No. 111/2021 was transferred to this court. The property involved in both suits are one and the same. The parties are also one and the same. Hence, it is necessary to club the present suit with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4106 WP No. 1870 of 2026 O.S.No.317/2018 to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and conflict of decision. If the application is not allowed, they will be put to loss and irreparable injury. Hence, prays to allow the IA No. VIII. 3. The Advocate for the plaintiff filed objection to IA and contend that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Already O.S.No.111/2021 the plaintiff evidence was commenced. Now the case is set down for cross-examination. The parties in both suits are different. The contents of affidavit filed along with IA are false. Even though the present suit was ON) & Cansferred from the II Addl. Senior Court as per the civil miscellaneous order, but there is no order regarding clubbing of the present suit with O.S.No.317/2018. Hence, they prays to reject the application. 4. Heard from both side Advocates. The Advocate for defendant No.3 filed written arguments. Perused the entire records. 5. The points that arise for my consideration are as under, POINTS 1. Whether the defendant No.3 has made out a grounds to allow the IA No.VIII filed under Section 151 of CPC? 2. What order? 6. My findings on the above points are as follows: Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4106 WP No. 1870 of 2026 REASONS: 7. Point No.2: The O.S.No.317/2018 was filed by one Mohan @Mohan Kumar for the relief of declaration of title in respect of Sy.No.21/2003 measuring 22 gunta out of 01 acre 04 gunta situated Baddihalli Village, Tumakuru Taluk. The said Mohan Mohankumar was defendant No.1 in O.S.No.111/2021. The O.S.No.111/2021 was also filed declaration of title in respect of Sy.No.21/3 measuring 22 gunta situated at Baddihalli Village. Now the defendant No.3 in the O.S.No.111/2021 filed this ) & application to club this suit with O.S.No.317/2018 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflict of decision. 8. It is admitted fact that the O.S.No.317/2018 was filed by Mohan @ Mohan Kumar against 09 defendants for declaration of title in respect of Sv.No.21/3 measuring 22 gunta. In that suit, defendant No.3 Padma was filed O.S.No. 111/2021 for the declaration in respect of property Sy.No.21/3 measuring 22 gunta situated at Baddihalli Village. In that suit, defendant No.1 Mohan Mohan Kumar was the plaintiff in O.S.No.317/2018. In the said O.S.No. 111/2021 defendant No.3 Muralidhar is also defendant No.2 in O.S.No.317/2018. Now the defendant No.3 in O.S.No. 111/2021 filed this application to club this suit with O.S.No.317/2018. 9. The O.S.No.317/2018 was filed earlier wherein already the issues were framed and plaintiff has examined as PW1, but documents were not marked. But in O.S.No.111/2021 already the plaintiff has examined as PW1 and got mark the Jocuments which is set down for cross examination. On perusal of the records, the suit property involved in both suits are one and the same. Even the parties are also same. Even though in civil miscellaneous No.114/2024 order passed by the Hon'ble Prl. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4106 WP No. 1870 of 2026 District Court, O.S.No.111/2021 was pending before II Addl. Senior Court to transfer to this court, but there is no order for clubbing both suits. But in the said order it is observed that O.S.No.111/2021 has to be tried along with O.S.No.317/2018. 10. As the property involved in both suits are one and the same and parties are also similar the O.S.No.111/2021 which was subsequently filed can be clubbed with O.S.No.317/2018 which is earlier suit to avoid conflict of decision. Hence, the defendant No.3 has made out a grounds to allow the IA No.VIII. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. 11. Point No.2:- In view of the reasons stated in the point No.1. I proceed to pass the following order; ORDER IA No.VIII filed by the defendant No.3 under Section 151 of is hereby allowed. O.S.No.111/2021 is clubbed with O.S.No.317/2018 for the purpose of recording common evidence. Parties to bear their own costs.” 2. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4106 WP No. 1870 of 2026 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 3. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25