The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of avoiding contradictory judgments on the same subject matter and the necessity of consolidating suits to save time and prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Ashok S. Kinagi, J. - This writ petition is filed by defendant No. 2 challenging the order dated 17.11.2017 passed on the interlocutory application in O.S. No. 493/2011 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 402/2010 against the respondents for declaration and possession of suit schedule property. Respondent No. 4 herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 493/2011 for specific performance of contract. In the suit-O.S. No. 493/2011, respondent No. 4 filed an application for clubbing O.S. No. 402/2010 with O.S. No. 493/2011. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objection contending that suits cannot be consolidated on the ground that parties are different in both the suits and relief sought in both the suits are different and hence, prayed to dismiss the application. The trial Court after hearing the parties allowed the application filed by respondent No. 4. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard learned Senior counsel Sri Shashikiran Shetty for Sri. M Jagadeesh for the petitioner and learned counsels for respondents.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties are different in both the suits. He submits that in O.S. No. 402/2010 is for the relief of declaration etc. and O.S. No. 493/2011 is for specific performance and the issues that would arise are different and scope of enquiry in both the suits are different. Further, in support of his contention he places reliance on the decisions of Co ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Shivashankargouda and Another v. Anuradha and others in CRP No. 100007/2017 disposed of on 16th March 2018 and also in the case of M/s. Sai Constructions v. M/s. Modern India Ltd. And Others in W.P. No. 103076/2020 disposed of on 12th March 2021. He submits that the trial Court committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the parties in both the suits are one and the same and further the subject matter of the suit property in both the suits are one and the same. He further submits that in order to avoid contradictory judgments, consolidation of the suits is necessary. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 in support of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement reported in (2004) 3 SCC 85. He submits that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 402/2010 seeking declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule property. Respondent No. 4 filed a suit in O.S. No. 493/2011 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the subject matter of the suit schedule property. The petitioner being one of the defendants in the said suit (O.S. No. 493/2011) filed the written statement. Respondent No. 4 filed an application for clubbing O.S. No. 402/2010 with O.S. No. 493/2011 contending that the parties in both the suits are one and the same and suit property in both the suits are one and same.

7.1. Perused the cause title of plaint of both the suits. Except the 9th respondent herein, all others are parties in both the suits. Admittedly, the subject matter of suit property involved in both the suits are one and the same. Further, parties in both the suits are one and the same.

8. Consolidation of suits, ordering joint trial or clubbing of the suits all these will be done keeping in view the convenience of the parties depending upon the parties to the suit, subject matter of litigation, nature of defence raised in the suits and keeping in view the issues which had been s