- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9THDAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.31761 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. C T PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMA REDDY RESIDENT OF INCHANGUR VILLAGE YADAVANAHALLI POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 106 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUVA REDDY N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUNISWAMI REDDY S/O RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ADHYAKSHA, NERALUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 2. SRI.MUNIRAJA REDDY, S/O C.RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, UPADHYAKSHYA, NERALUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 3. SRI MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MEMBER, NERALUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH 4. SRI.CHANDRA REDDY, S/O C.RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 5. SRI. VENKATESH REDDY, S/O MUNISWAMIREDDY @THIPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 6. SRI. KRISHNAREDDY, S/O MUNISWAMI REDDY @THIPOPAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 7. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O KRISHNAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 8. SRI.MUNIRAJA REDDY, S/O. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 9. SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O. T. MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 10. SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O. THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 11. SRI. NARAYANAPPA @ TAILOR NARAYANAPPA, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 12. SRI. RAMESH, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 13. SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O ALLALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 14. SRI. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEAS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 15. SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O KARAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 16. SRI.KRISHNAPPA, S/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 17. SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 18. SRI. VENKATESH @ SHETTIHALLI VENKATESH, S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. 19. SRI. PRAKASH REDDY, S/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ICHANGUR VILLAGE, YADAVANAHALLI POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V VISWANATH SETTY.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL IN MA NO. 66/2024 ANNEXURE-J.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL IN MA NO. 66/2024 ANNEXURE- J.C THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to challenge an order dated 11.09.2025 in M.A.No.66/2024 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). 2. This Court had while issuing emergent notice in the matter on 04.12.2025 passed the following order: “2. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal [hereinafter referred to as "the Impugned Order"]. By the Impugned Order, the Miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as "the CPC"] filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has been allowed and further proceedings in O.S.No.111/2014 have been stayed till the conclusion of O.S.No.218/2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed two separate suits between different parties and for substantially different reliefs, albeit in respect of same suit schedule property, which is set out below: "SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the numberless kharab land measuring 06 acres 25 guntas of Ichangur Village, Athibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk together with Honge trees, Jally Trees, Banayan Trees, Hippe trees and other trees and bounded on the, East by : Land bearing Sy.No.17 West by : Land bearing Sy.No.33 and 34 North by : Land bearing Sy.No.43/2 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 South by : Land bearing Sy.No.19 and Devasthanam Inam land bearing Sy.19" 4. Learned counsel submits that suit in O.S.No.111/2014, captioned Sri.C.T.Purushothama Reddy vs. Sri.Muniswami Reddy and Others[hereinafter referred to as "the first suit")has been filed for the following reliefs: "(a) Grant permanent injunction preventing the defendants, their agents, supporters or any body acting under them from in any way interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff or dispossessing the plaintiff from the schedule property. (b) Award costs of the suit, (c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as the situation demands to meet the ends of justice." 4.1. He further submits that the parties to the first suit are: Sri.C.T.Purushothama Reddy vs. Sri.Muniswami Reddy and Others. 5. It is further contended by learned Counsel that suit O.S.No.218/2014, Purushothama Reddy v. Zilla Panchayath and Others [hereinafter referred to as "the second suit")has also been filed by the plaintiff. However, it is against the different parties which include Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayath, Neralur Grama Panchayath, Adhyaksha of Neralur Grama Panchayath and Upadhyaksha of Neralur Grama Panchayath. The prayers in the second suit are for declaration, which are entirely different from the first suit and read as below: "a) Declare that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he is entitled to hold, possess and enjoy the same. b) Declare that the defendants have no lawful authority to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by invading over the same and form sites therein. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 c) Grant permanent injunction preventing the defendants, their agents, subordinate officials or anybody acting under them from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. d) Award costs of the suit, e) Grant such other relief or reliefs as the situation demands to meet the ends of justice." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by defendant No.1 was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 18.09.2024. The prayers in the suits and the issue involved in the suits were substantially different. However, it is contended that in an appeal filed by defendant No.1/respondent No.1 against the rejection, the First Appellate Court has allowed the application reversing the order of the learned Trial Court on 18.09.2024. Learned counsel further submits that given that the first suit was filed for an injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession, while the second suit was filed seeking a declaration from the statutory authorities including Zilla Panchayath, Taluk Panchayath and Grama Panchayath. 7. A perusal of the plaints in the two cases as well as the prayers reflect that not only are the parties entirely different, the prayers in the present suits are substantially different as well. The plaintiff has sought for an injunction in the first suit while the second suit is qua declaration of recital. 8. However, the learned Appellate Court has in its reasons found that the suits are the same and the parties are also the same, which is clearly against the record. The relevant extract of the reasoning of the learned Trial Court is set out below: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 "10. Point No.1: Plaint in O.S. No. 111/2014 and plaint in O.S. No. 218/2014 are placed before the court, O.S.No.111/2014, filed for relief of permanent injunction with respect to property i.e., numberless kharab bearing No.6 acres 25 guntas of lcchanguru Village, O.S. No.218/2014 was filed for declaration to declare plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property i.e., numberless kharab measuring 6 acres 25 guntas of lcchanguru Village, the parties in O.S. No. 111/2014 are president, vice president, member of Neraluru Gram Panchayath and other general public in O.S. No.218/2014 the defendants are Jilla Panchayath, Taluk Panchayath, Gram Panchayath president and vice president of Neraluru Gram Panchayath. Both suits were filed with respect to same property and against same persons. In both the suits the only question for determination is possession, if two suits are allowed to continued and two judgments were passed by two courts, with respect to same property there is chances of conflicting judgments. O.S. No.218/2014 is a comprehensive suit, in this suit plaintiff shall prove possession, interference of defendants. In O.S. No.218/2014 it is suit for injunction, again plaintiff shall prove possession. The question involved in the both the suits is one and the same. The parties are same, subject matter is same. The observation of trial court admittedly, subject matter, parties and properties are different is against to facts and circumstances of the case, hence requires Interference of this court, accordingly, this point answered in the Affirmative." [Emphasis supplied] 9. In addition, the learned Appellate Court has also in its order directed that the earlier suit be stayed, which is also against the Order 10 of the CPC, which is set out below: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 "10. Stay of suit.—No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Explanation.—The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action." 9.1. The findings of the Appellate Court in this regard are below: "11. Point No.2: For the reasons assigned to above point, resulted in following: ORDER Appeal filed U/o 43 Rule 1 of CPC, is allowed. The orders of learned IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal passed in O.S. No.111/2014, on application filed U/s 10 of CPC, is set aside. Application filed by defendant No.1 in O.S. No.111/2014 is allowed, further proceedings in O.S. No.111/2014 are stayed till conclusion of O.S. No.218/2014. Office is directed to send copy of this order, to learned IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal." [Emphasis supplied] - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the respondent enters appearance and he makes two submissions. Firstly he submits that some of the parties are overlapping in both the suits. That contention is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However he submits that even though some of the parties are overlapping, the petitioners in the suit O.S.No.111/2014 and O.S.No.218/2014 are entirely different and have raised different contentions. 4. As stated above, the Appellate Court however found that some of the parties are also the same and the reliefs are also the same which is clearly against the record which is reproduced in para 2above. 5. In view of what is stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.111/2014 on 16.01.2026. The learned Trial Court shall proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits and in accordance with law. Both the parties shall remain present on that date before the Court. 6. Since the suits relate to the year 2014, l earned counsel for the parties submit that they will not take any unnecessary - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2397 WP No. 31761 of 2025 adjournment before the Court. The parties are bound by the submissions made before this Court. The learned Trial Court will endeavour to expeditiously dispose of both the suits. 7. The Petition is disposed of with these directions. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA