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

5

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

6

Benches

of

this

Court

in

the

case

of

Shivashankargouda and Another v. Anuradha

and others in CRP No.100007/2017 disposed of on

16^th 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 12^th

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.

7

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 in support

of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of

the Hon9ble 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.

8

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 settled and furthe