IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD I'
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF REBRIJ.A1R3f._._2D:ID I I 7'
BEFORE A. I I »
THE HON'BLE MR.JIIs.TICEI'sIIEHAsH--"-DI' ADI' I
WRIT PETiTIONS"'N.D'.6D 146;2I01--I) :
AND 60.153-155-;'--£20~1_O"{QM--CPCI_
BETWEEN:
INDIA PVT. _ I A ._
298, 0LD,MAHA.I-3ALIRIJ__ ROAD, .
SHOLINGANALLUR; CHENNAI..I60'Q0'19
REPRE.sEN'TE'D~1--I3Y_ITS AUTH..QR1sED SIGNATORY
MR.€5.RENGARAJAN._"=,I . ...PETIT1oNER
(BY S'I2I;sRINIVAé_j~RAc§HA\£AN, ADV FOR
M / s'*-.1I$IDIJs* LAW)»
. "M/:3,VMS?L'L.TD
A CG--.QRERAT_IvE COLONY,
' ._ HQ«sPET..58:3j203
'REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENT
A ;(_.l3Y SR1.s.s.NAGANAND, sR.ADv FOR
SRI.G.K.I-IIREGOUDAR, ADV)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF’ INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDERS DT.07.01.201O PASSED BY THE LEARNED
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AT HOSPET ON I.A.NO.27
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED IN
O.S.NO.50/2005 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR oRpERTs.;__’__j’Tfqis.
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
1. After hearing for some._vti’m_e, learned the-A’
petitioner has filed a memo. gC.opy._o’f..the memo isiiserved on
the learned senior counsel -Sri,Nfaganarid,* _
2. Sri.Nagar’1arM1id, learned s«eniori.veot1nse1 appearing for
the rivespondrénts he has no objection to
dispose of the «memo is placed on record and
made as part_ofith’is order.
_fi1A”-‘etitivoriver has sought for consolidating and dubbing
i’W_s”1’i1_ts’:”‘O.S.No.49/2005, O.S.No.112/2005 and
Oi:E;’3.I\fo;i14i’;/2005 with O.S.No.50/OS and to dispose of the
it is same a common judgment.
hi4. Sri.Naganand, learned senior counsel appearing for
the contesting respondent submitted that in some case the
defendants are different and it may not be possible for the
trial court to pass common judgment, same may beylesft to
trial court itself.
5. Memo filed by the petitioner’s~ciounse’I readis:Vasl”L1nder;g
“In the above petition Zthepetitionerig
questioned the legalitylofugtheforder of
of the Principal Civil Jsege (st.1:>’h..i} ‘sitd J;/isc,
Hospet, dated e.j.o1.;2o’1o”i_jiti “-»o.s.1\i’o.50 /£005
refusing to consolidate the suits
o.s.49/2005, oA.is..1:’1’2/ :,stnd~vO.a:._:£ 714/05 with
the suit; the same by a
l
V A has already filed affidavits
hy__ vvay in chief in o.s.49/05,
._ o.s§’i1V2/Q5. stid’~~io.s.114/05. The petitioner
t~ha_t__upon consolidation and clubbing of
a°siiit.is”-.o.s.49/05, o.s.112/05 and o.s.114/05
– ../05 with all four suits to be disposed
of a common judgment with common
H evidence, the petitioner may be permitted to and
“wsill file in two weeks a fresh affidavit by way of
additional evidence in the consolidated suits and
mark additional documents if any and in View of
the above will withdraw the affidavits by way of
evidence already filed in O.S.49/05, 0.8.112/05
and 0.8.114/05 before the Court of the
Principal Judge (Sr.Dn.) 81; JMFC, Hospet.”
6. In terms of the memo, the trial courtiiii-S. d:i_rec’ted fig
dispose of the suits. The trial court isidirected’t–o:_iconso1idat«e
and club O.S.No.49/2005, “vojs.No.1Jis2i,/Qeosii:–¢’i”~~a.ifid.,L
O.S.No.114/2005 with o.s;1§i’o.s0/05._’_an}i °’c;¢}idqct at
common trial and dispose of«’tir1ie”sii1:’itsit’–._
7. Both thewcounsei”su:brr1it_’tha,it’v_tirie;.”tiin1e fixed by this
court in 2006..4foriiidis§5osa1 of the suits and
connected matters may 31.07.2010. In
View of the aboveideireloprnenti; extended upto
31.07.2910 fore-§iis’po.sa1 of theflisuitsi
8. “the “aibO»\I:ti’,’t(:)3i)vS(i3iI”JatiOnS, the writ petition stands
35/5,.
fudge
disposed of. his
1m%- _ ‘-