The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of applications to club multiple civil suits involving mortgage redemption and recovery of additional amounts, holding that the distinct causes of action precluded a joint trial.
Writ petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to call all suits together but try them separately.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16488 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
5. SUJATHA
W/O. M. PARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, 8/1 AND 9, I AND 2ND FLOOR, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560027
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH25), BENGALURU, DATED 09.09.2019 IN O.S.NOS.7774-7776/2017 AND O.S.NOS.6796-6797/2018 AND THE ORDERS DATED 11.09.2019 IN O.S.NOS.6798-6801/2018 AND O.S.NOS.6807-6810/2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-F1 TO F13 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the orders dated 09.09.2019 and 11.09.2019 passed by III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. Nos.7774/2017, 7775/2017, 7776/2017 and 6796/2018, 6797/2018, 6798/2018, 6799/2018, 6800/2018, 6801/2018, 6807/2018, 6808/2018, 6809/2018 and 6810/2018, by which the applications filed by the petitioners for clubbing O.S.Nos.6796-
NC: 2024:KHC:8085 WP No. 16488 of 2021
6810/2018 with O.S.Nos.7774/2017, 7775/2017 and 7776/2017 were rejected.
the respondent No.3 was the mortgagor of certain properties. The respondent No.3 and others filed three suits namely, O.S.Nos.7774/2017, 7775/2017 and 7776/2017 for redemption of the mortgage and all the three suits were pending before the same Court. In the meanwhile, the mortgagees filed O.S.Nos.6796/2018, 6797/2018, 6798/2018, 6799/2018, 6800/2018, 6801/2018, 6807/2018, 6808/2018, 6809/2018 and 6810/2018 to recover certain additional amounts advanced by them to the mortgagors, purportedly under the mortgage deeds.
tried by the same Court. Later the mortgagees filed separate applications to club all the 13 suits to conduct a common trial. These applications were rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that cause of action for the suits in O.S.Nos.7774/2017, 7775/2017 and 7776/2017 were different and distinct, than the cause of action in O.S.Nos.6796/2018, 6797/2018, 6798/2018,
6799/2018, 6800/2018, 6801/2018, 6807/2018, 6808/2018, 6809/2018 and 6810/2018. Being aggrieved by the said orders, a composite writ petition is filed by the petitioners/mortgagees.
the respondent Nos.1 to 5, who contend that the three suits filed for redemption of mortgage were based on the registered mortgage deeds executed by mortgagors in favour of the mortgagees. Therefore, he contends that the mortgagors have an indefeasible right to seek redemption of the mortgage and the same cannot be shackled by the mortgagees by claiming that certain amounts were further paid during the subsistence of the mortgage. He however contends that the mortgagors had specific defences against the claims made by the
mortgagees that certain amounts have been paid under the mortgage with reference to the mortgage deeds.
NC: 2024:KHC:8085 WP No. 16488 of 2021
mortgagees to club the suits filed by them with the suits filed by the mortgagors is just and proper.
Sd/JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether orders rejecting applications to club mortgage redemption suits with suits for recovery of additional amounts were correct in law.
Whether the causes of action for redemption suits and recovery suits were distinct enough to warrant separate trials.
ROSHNI S.SHAH
DEEPIKA A. SHAH
VIDHI S.SHAH
SANJAY SHAH
AJAY SHAH
P. MANJUNATH
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
