{N "FHE. HiGH COURT 0:: KARNATAKA AT 3;;;m(3%,ég_L'_§§i::L
DATED "rms THE 8"' DAY OF E)ECEZ?.1S:E§R: f.2TrT>j<";C>
BETWEEN:
D.Bhz1kI'E2avzzLsi}ia.;3" _. _ V
Son ofLuteDh§:_1'=-miihL:idLr;---jf---._ ' _
Aged e:b<)L1t4'=i 'I-'--+:'{'r.;'...s'. 3 * V
Residi mg 2'1? H{){£Se Ni)'; 'E 46;'. _
5"' Mafia Rm.'
R2:j21~jit1aLgaI*.«. V
B:-murm-e:=:u.* V p ...PE'!'ETi()NI%IR
(By'§5.I1r'if;3z.V.(i;i'r1--g.z1rJ_I1;1:::ppz1, Aaivncaue. A.\/.G.Ass0ci2=1tes for
P§3v[if';:%)I]ti"F';} V'
1. w1':a;1ae»:a1,
Sr'i.() () E U.
3
£-'J
w
Smt.Sa1vithri
V-\'H"e of Rzljélmkél.
Aged about 45 Years,
Residing in L1I]--z1u1ht')E"iSCd
Shed C0nsta'ucted imide the
Ptkfix' No.59 EM. 5"" Main.
4*" Bh)L'§\'. Rit_jLtjEE1t1g_tl!',
Bt:tnfg;1it):'e--5()(} 0 I U. ... RESP()ND"E'NTfS_ _
(By ShrE.G.M.Umztpathi. Adv0eztt'e t"t'):fHRespo1t.<i'eht;:&o.hlhttttti 2)"
This vvm Petition is filedhtmderA';?tie1e$ 226 :.t;:; and
proceedings of the case and qL:z=1s'h,_th..r.:». orde:?._dt'tted£ 15.7.2009
passed _.h),r--.e.t_I}VeI~._Ci<'5't1::;;i.~_<')l*7._ti1s:' IX';-h....«¢Xdci§ti(')112ti City Civil Judge,
Bartgztture (CC7.P_!..N(3).VI(:})aUh !,A.No_V in ().S.N0.8288/2()(')3, at
true cp~}-' or »\:'l1i_CE:.:'Vi&a'p-;~Qijt.:_e'ea'[ as Annexuz'e--L and be pleased to
LEHUW }.A'.}\,§<5.\/' inf).S{?**€t)';8_2"88/2(}()3 as prayed for and et<:.,
4; T1253 Wa'it'"PetEti<)t1'e<_)111i:1g on fer prc:li:ninary hearing in
«.g,:'lh)wing: --
ORDER
: ;”«-._Het11’d the Counsei f’0:’ the petEtic.)ne:’ and the 1’es’pondents.
2. The petitioner is the plttixttéfl in (.t).S.No.8288/2(‘}(‘)3 and
the respondent is the gltti1’atif”t’ in (,).S.N(_).()?,2]/2U()2. The
3
petitioner herein had. in the first instance, approached the court of
the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge in Misc.Cztse
No.-4167/2()()o_ which was tiisposeti oi’ by an order (iL1EC”Ci A’
=7Ci~t .1;:.’;i’..()(‘}(a
holding that it would be l}CCt3SS£1t’y to tI’£t115iei’ the ciasevtobe
as prayed for . The suit in 0.8.622 1,-*;2′(it)’2~t1tciti by
herein was pending on the ground that._the,_suits i1′}vo’ive ide’ntic2:.i
questions and between the same i5′;«=.ift’ies and”i.1_1_ re.e:;pect’;t>f’ the same
subject matter and that vthet-.evit_feiice”to .he’~-.E.ead in both the cases
on that”‘1°ot’5tiiig that the application of
wou id gt ‘I.so”t>’e. nt icai.
the petitioner wasati_in,~.?e’tLi’The matter iwviiig been t1’ansf’ei’i’ed,
the pe£i..Iit):ier”itad’thei’eai’tei’ fiied an application seeking that the
i”suits”be eilitibibeti, which was rejected, agziiitst which, a writ petition
A”wtt’s;i’_’t’i}etiii:he.t'(‘ire’-this court in WP E9667/2()07. The writ petition
wztstiisp.ose’d”t_)1′ with a direction to the Trial Court to reconsider
._its ortiei9″i’e_§ectiiig the application for eltibbihgg the suits together.
— “i”i’izii Court has reiterated its L’£il’i§t2l’ opinion that it would not
be convenient’ to ciuh the cases together. Tiiis runs counter to the
order passed in §\-‘Eisc.Cf§–‘ %\io.:i()7/2{){)6. The Tris-ii Court has
sotight to take udvaiituge of the diret:t’ion by this court to
reconsider zmci di.spo;s’e of the atpplictition of the petitioner seeking
clubbing of’ the the-ttte1’s tt_)geti1ei’. In View of an opinioi=1«,h’c1vimg
been expresseti by the Principzil City Civil Jtltige iit°~{l’1e;'”t7i–tst,
instance and having allowed the apgfiieation–‘_seekit1’§;’L1i”t.ot,i’g.h4t toijave clubbed the suits.
ThevC’t5;:’:1§’e’!totifrithe ‘:’r3.’~’ap()nLiC]][ seekittg to oppose the
game on tlie.__gm_iiiiLi_ti’t:-it”t.hE;~ Misceliuneous Appticatioh was oniy
am »’i3i@f3iiACE’1[i()!1 Se–e.kVi_:jg,trz1nst”er and the question of suits being
‘c!.ubbedv._t-it*tth::'”1’t1stant;e oi’ the petitioner does not arise and does
not 1ilC1’it cti;§;<,icic.i'tition.
‘ The very i'”edS()t] the Suit was t:’ctnsfe1’reti in the fit”.<t
..fliiist:t:.1ce was for the sake of eonveniet'tce and since the xtthieet
mgttter and the parties are the stone. In this view of the m£it'E€t", the
5
A
3
Trizsl C’e’>L1r1 is now iEi§”L;’L’Iti{§ to club the sL1i{s am? try the suits
tc’)g;ct§1e1’_ The pctition is dE..s’p(.)st3d e_)f’acc1′<.iingiy.
sd/.7, u
Tud§§}jg *%