IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.19309/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S. VIGNESHWARA ESTATES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYAN COMPLEX PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560052 Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.

by RUPA V Location: H IGH 2. MRS. INDU MODI COURT OF PARTNER M/S VIGNESHWARA ESTATES KARNATAKA AGED 71 YEARS W/O MR. J.K. MODI R/AT C-9/15, DLF CITY PHASE-1 GURGAON, HARYANA-122002.

AND ALSO AT FLAT NO.100 OORVE APARTMENTS, NO.60 MUNI MARAPPA ROAD OFF NANDIDURG ROAD JAYAMAHAL, BANGALORE-560046.

3. M/S. CORENCO ENTERPRISES PVT LTD PARTNER M/S VIGNESHWARA ESTATES A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES AC 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.295 AND 296, UNIT-2

100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560038 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ADITYA KAURA.

4. MR. ADITYA KAURA AGED 45 YEARS S/O MR. R.N. KAURA R/AT FLAT NO.100, OORVE APARTMENTS NO.60, MUNI MARAPPA ROAD OFF NANDIDURGA ROAD JAYAMAHAL, BANGALORE-560046.

5. MRS. SHRUTI KAURA AGED 45 YEARS D/O MR. J.K. MODI R/AT FLAT NO.100, OORVE APARTMENTS NO.60, MUNI MARAPPA ROAD OFF. NANDIDURG ROAD JAYAMAHAL, BANGALORE-560046.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHALINI CAROL EDITH JOHN, ADV.,)

AND:

MRS. P. RAJITHA W/O MR. B.K. SUDHAKAR AGED 43 YEARS R/AT NO.1118, 23RD MAIN ROAD

23RD CROSS, II SECTOR H S R LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560102.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR R1)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.26214/2019, BY THE LEARNED XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE (CCH-22) DISMISSING I.A.NO.3 FILED U/S 10 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.3 ANNEXURE-A & ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

23.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

07.06.2021 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.26214/2019 by the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court').

2. Smt.Shalini Carol Edith John, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No.1938/2019 for the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction on 11.03.2019 and later the respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.26214/2019 for injunction with regard to same property. It is submitted that the issue involved in the suit filed by the petitioners, which is prior, and the issue involved in the later suit filed by the respondent are substantively one and the same, hence, the petitioners filed an application under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, 'CPC') to stay the later suit filed by the respondent herein. It is further submitted that the trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the survey numbers and the parties in both the suits are different and refused to stay the further proceedings in the suit. It is also submitted that the respondent has filed Miscellaneous Petition in Misc.No.1260/2024 seeking to transfer their suit to the same Court where the suit filed by the petitioners is pending and in the said petition a specific stand is taken that the subject matter of both the suits are one and the same and the parties claim the right in respect of very same property and now they cannot take a different stand by contending that the issue involved in the suits are distinct. It is contended that if the later suit filed by the respondent is allowed to continue, there will be divergent finding in two suits between the same parties on the same issue. It is further contended that in both the suits the trial Court is required to consider as to whether the proper