This Court rejected a writ petition challenging the order allowing clubbing of two civil suits (O.S. No.5/2017 and O.S. No.16/2017) pending between the same parties, involving identical suit properties, by the Senior Civil Judge, Haliyal.
Petition stand rejected; no leave to institute any other Writ Petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION No.100094/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
A N D :
R/O:AJAGAON, PO:KESROLLI-581329, TAL:HALIYAL, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HALIYAL ON I.A.No.26 IN O.S.No.16/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
suits in O.S.No.5/2017 and O.S.No.16/2017 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Haliyal, and with a prayer to pass a common judgment in order to avoid conflicting judgments with respect to the suit schedule properties.
M.D.UTHAIAH (DECEASED) BY LRs Vs. MANDEPANDA
AIYANNA AND OTHERS reported in 2008(6) KLJ 688.
of the trial Court requires no interference. Further more, provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act also provides for placing reliance on the evidence led before the Court as between the same parties and the same is binding on the parties. That being the position in law, this Court does not find any ground which warrants interference with the orders impugned herein.
Accordingly, petition stands rejected.
(Sd/-) JUDGE
jm/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of clubbing hearing of two suits between same parties and dealing with same properties to prevent conflicting decisions is a fit case for interference by the writ Court under Article
Whether the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act bind parties to refrain from seeking consolidation when the same issue of title is taken up by opposing parties.
Whether the facts of this case versus the ruling in S.C. Jain Vs. Bindeshwari Devi warrant setting aside the trial court's order allowing clubbing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.D. Uthaiyah (Deceased) by LRs Vs. Mandepanda Aiyanna and OthersReferred¶33
M.D.UTHAIAH (DECEASED) BY LRs Vs. MANDEPANDA AIYANNA AND OTHERS reported in 2008(6) KLJ 688
S.C. Jain Vs. Bindeshwari DeviDistinguished¶37
S.C.JAIN VS. BINDESHWARI DEVI reported in Civil Revision Appeal No.335/1997 dated 24.04.1997
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O PARASHURAM
SHRI ANANT PARASHURAM BEEKIKAR
SHRI. SADANAND GUNDU BEEKIKAR
SMT. SARASWATI W/O VILAS BEEDIKAR
KUMARI POONAM D/O VILAS BEEDIKAR
SHRI SANTOSH MANOHAR BEEDIKAR
G. NARENDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
