IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'Bi_E MR. JUSTICE IAWAD RAHTM~A.'_';----if _
CRP NO. 167 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. SR1 CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SON OF LATE PAPAIAH,L"'~~._L»
2. SRI MANJUNATHA, L. A
AGED ABOUT V3.3""YEA.:RS§. I A "
SON OF LATE CHIKKANVNA'
3. SR1 NAGARAIU' I _ A
AGED_'VA8}QUT 49 Y'E'I5IRS}
SOATOE_ L-ATSE 'PARAIAH;:' H A
'ALL- THE PE:':"'1TION-ERS"ARE RESIDENTS
OF -SU'i\:"E;...'SRI M.NAGARA3U,
SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
3. SRI M.BEERAPPA,
5'; 3:
"N If --/
IKJ
SON OF LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
4. SRI YELEYAPPA,
SON OF LATE NAGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
5. SRI KRISHNAPPA,
SON OF LATE NAGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE _ -. «.
RESIDENTS OF SUNNAGH-A__TTA "v.IL'LAGE._;""
ALURU DUDDANAHALLI ' "
KUKNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALILIK -- ,'7-26'2--1:10"-~L_
BANGALORE RURA-..LfDIS'TR!;CT;', .,,
I ' ...__ARES..PCNDENTS
(BY SRI GNARASI REiD._Dy-,i.ADvi.,L, I-"'OTR'Ri.jI-- TO 3)
THIS CRP FILED'-U/S' 11_S.OF""c'Pc., AGAINST THE
ORDER DAfI'ED_~..v0'2v-~Q6--2O.1oi,._PASSED IN MISOPETITION
NO.17/2010.,.OiN:j_THE' -F'I~L?}E._ OF THE PRL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS--I.._J'IJDGE,--. "wBA.NGA'LOR'E RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE, "AIVTLOwIi\!O'~~.V,THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SEC.24C)_FCPC,_ A "
THIS'SPET'ITIG_NAA*(iOi?iING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
V DAY,4f_FHi'E..COUF{TV__§§/VEADEH THE FOLLOWING:~
ORDER
re-vAision under Section 115 of Code of Civii
K””‘~..V:Pro;;edLIre;’ 1908 is directed against the order dated
L..AD.2′:O6i:’2O10 in Misc. No. 17/2010 on the file of the learned
.P_riIrIci;:>a| District and Sessions Judge, Bangaiore Rurai
District at Bangaiore, whereby OS No. 772/2008 on the file
and not by Katha number. But there is no dispute with
regard to properties referred to in the schedule to suit. In
both the suit the decree for injunction was soughvt._ypy_i’t.he
parties, ie., petitioners seek an order of injunction””at;-aiiirivsti~.
the respondents in respect of the same propertyrwhileyythe°’
respondents seek an order of ‘-._in3′:=,’i”iictio’ri._ “a_cj’ains:ti’-.._t’i*eie
petitioners. The suit in OS”iV_i\ir)_. 72:22/:.2o0’8i*f:fii~»ed._by: the,:’
respondents was pending on Heiddl. Civii
Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Devanah,a’i–.|i. 789/2008 is
pending on the fiie of “Civil 3udge Or.
Dvn.), petitioners is that
has ordered that
both sd-its Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.),
oevanahany, whe’i«e thetsdit’iriied by them in os No. 203/09
_ is pen-§di”ng. seei<i*nycV;VV'for partition of property in question.
Thelearned counsel submits that 08 No.
20_3}'2009:'«"hva__s'sheen withdrawn by the petitioners. This is
V . undo"dsbted.iy""V'a subsequent development after impugned
orderréywas passed. The grievance of the petitioner is both
thesujits should not be clubbed. The ground urged is that
i 'identity of the property is different. But when counsei was
:3 "K
/
requested to point out distinction in the properties in both
suits, he has mentioned the same description. Hence, such
a contention, I find is against the facts and record. H
5. All that the learned District ludge has ‘
allow the petition filed by the respondents oft’
the suit in os 772/2008 and os 7139/’20t)’8
of Addl. Civii Judge (Jr. Dvn.)i.a’n.d F>rin’ci_pa~l_VCiyiI’:j’udge: (Jr. ” it
Dvn.) respectively and assigned..ui:tfto”–~the cou–rt..of:§Principai
Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) is pending.
This was perhaps’ the done as for
partition, ie.:__.OS 203/2009 has
since thetjuestion of assigning these
two suitsto (Sr. Dvn.) does not arise.
To that extent the.oi<der_ih"as to be set aside. The contention
;.idesAthat'b'oth' suit be adjudicated separately are
'Hon iy r"th_é rejectio n.
. The suit of the petitioners is subsequent while
‘suit otthe respondents is earlier. If petitioners are not
r._ha.pp’y’*’tNith clubbing of the suit they have to show that the
it lifpvrolwperties described in the schedule are different and thus
6
file an application under Section 10 CPC for stay of the
subsequent suit.
7. Therefore, while rejecting the revisiontju~p_e’t’il’tipn
as devoid of merit, the learned Civil
Devanahally, is directed to take note the
No. 772/2008 on the filed 0f,t_he learned iu.d’ge:’,
(Jr. Dvn.), Devanahali, (the s’Li’i’t.VVV:.fi»led ~t_h’er’r’esflp;pndent is
pending) and stay proc:ee.dings.”i:nt of Vpioviiyers under
Section 10 CPC till disposal’l-of
i JUDGE
VK