Suits with distinct causes of action should not be clubbed for simultaneous disposal, particularly when one suit is at a more advanced stage than the others.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. KAMAL, J.

Writ petition in W.P.No.11123/2024 is by Smt.Kanthamma /plaintiff in O.S.No.475/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2023, passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.136/2022, on the file of Principal District Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). In and by which the trial Court, while allowing the said petition, has directed suit in O.S.No.781/2020 pending on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli and suit in O.S.No.511/2022 pending on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli to be withdrawn and place before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli where the suit in O.S.No.475/2008 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein is pending and further directed for simultaneous disposal of the said suits in accordance with law.

2. Writ petition in W.P.No.21233/2022 is filed by respondents/defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.475/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2023 passed in said O.S.No.475/2008 passed in I.A.No.1/2023 rejecting the request for recording common evidence in the aforesaid two suits.

-

3. Sri. K. V. Nitish, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11123/2024, taking this Court through the records vehemently submits that suit in O.S.No.475/2008 filed by the petitioner herein is one for partition and separate possession of 14 items of the joint family properties belonging to the family of the plaintiff. He further submits that evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendants in the said suit has been recorded and completed as far back as in the year 2022 and the matter was at the stage of final argument of the defendants.

4. He submits that the suit in O.S.No.781/2020 has been filed by one Smt. Padma, daughter of Sri.B. Narayan Rao, who is the paternal uncle of the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.475/2008, alleging that the deed of sale dated 21.11.1983 executed by her father Sri.B. Narayan Rao, in favour of Sri.Raghavappa, the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.475/2008 as illegal and not binding on her. He submits that the said suit has been filed after 12 years of filing of the suit in O.S.No.475/2008 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and after 37 years of the execution of the deed of sale disputed thereunder. Thus he submits that the cause of action for both the suits and the relief claimed are completely different and distinct.

-

5. As regards, suit in O.S.No.511/2022, he submits that the said suit is filed by one Smt. Geethashree daughter of Sri. Raghavappa, who is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.475/2008 seeking her 1/3^rd share in the share that will be allotted to her father Sri.Raghavappa. He submits the said suit is superfluous inasmuch as the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.475/2008, being one for partition, would also determine the share of said Sri. Raghavappa and in such eventuality she would be entitled for her share in accordance with law. He submits that the said suit is also filed after 14 years of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

6. He submits that the aforesaid three suits being premised on different causes of action, cannot be clubbed and disposed of analogously, more particularly when the evidence in O.S.No.475/2008 has already been completed, there is no requirement of re-opening the case, defeating the very purpose and wasting precious judicial time. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition.

7. Sri. Ram Mohan, learned counsel appearing in W.P.No.21233/2023 along with Ms. Madhumitha, learned counsel for the respondents, apart from justifying the order passed in Misc.P.No.136/2