Both these appeals are directed against the impugned

judgments and decrees dated 28.01.2016 passed in

O.S.No.712/2014 and O.S.No.711/2014 by the learned XIX

Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said suits filed

by the appellants – plaintiffs against the respondents –

defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in

respect of the suit schedule immovable properties were

dismissed by the trial court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on

record.

3. A perusal of the material on record including the

impugned judgments and decrees passed by the trial court will

indicate that the appellants were the plaintiffs in both the suits,

5

while the defendants were different; however, the subject

matter of both the suits were adjacent premises and common

questions of fact and law arose for consideration in both the

suits.

4. The respondents herein who were arrayed as

defendants in both the suits have contested the same; in

addition thereto, the 2^nd respondent – 2^nd defendant filed

applications - I.A.2 in both the suits under Order 7 Rule 11(d)

CPC interalia contending that in view of the provisions

contained in Order 21 Rule 101 CPC, the suits by the

appellants – plaintiffs claiming to be the obstructers / objectors

were not maintainable and the plaints were liable to be

rejected and the suits were also liable to be dismissed. The

said applications having been opposed by the appellants –

plaintiffs, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned

order, allowing the aforesaid I.A.No.2 in both the suits and

consequently, rejecting the plaints and passing the impugned

judgments and decrees dismissing the suits filed by the

6

appellants – plaintiffs, who are before this Court by way of the

present appeals.

5. A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees

will indicate that the trial court has noticed that the specific

claim of the appellants – plaintiffs was that they are entitled to

contest the execution proceedings instituted by respondent

No.2 against respondent No.1 as obstructers / objectors

having already filed applications under Order 21 Rules 97 and

99 of CPC. Under these circumstances, the trial court came to

the conclusion that having already filed the aforesaid

applications in the execution proceedings, the suits filed by the

appellants – plaintiffs were barred by Order 21 Rule 101 of

CPC and consequently, the suits were liable to be dismissed

as not maintainable in law. While coming to the said

conclusion, the trial court held as under:-

In O.S.No.712/2014

2. In the affidavit annexed to I.A.No.II,

defendant No.2 has stated that he is the absolute

owner of the suit schedule property and leased it in

favour of 1st defendant by executing Registered

Lease Deed dtd:25/2/2011 and thereafter, 1st

7

defendant failed to pay rentals and then, he

terminated the tenancy of 1st defendant by initiating

proceedings in A.C.No.5/2013 before the arbitrator as

per Clause 20 of the lease agreement. The arbitrator

passed the award on 17/8/2013 and to comply with

the said award, he has filed Ex.No.3123/2013 before

this court against first defendant. In the said execution

proceedings, the present plaintiff claimed to be the

sub-lessee under 1st defendant and filed Objector

application under Order XXI R.97 r/w 151 CPC and it

is pending for adjudication. During pendency of said

application under Order XXI R.97 r/w 151 CPC,

plaintiff is debarred from filing the present suit and

hence, suit is not maintainable. The prayer sought by

plaintiff is not at all maintainable even under the

provisions of Specific Relief Act. Hence, prayed for

allowing the annexed application.

3. The plaintiff has filed objections to I.A.No.II stating

that I.A. is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

He has contended that plaintiff is a registered sub-

lessee under 1st defendant and there is a provision

for sub-lease in the registered sale agreement in

favour of 1st defendant. Without impl