Disposed¶42

Sri Malledevirappa v. Sri Sadashiva

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2026WP/2909/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Clubbing/consolidation of suits; Section 151 CPC application rejected; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction declined at late stage; stage-of-proceedings objection - arguments concluded, judgment imminent; risk of conflicting judgments; same court and same parties; Karnataka High Court single-judge oral order disposing petition without interference; Chikkamagaluru Trial Court; O.S.No.214/2012 and O.S.No.511/2012.

What did the court decide?

Since arguments in O.S.No.214/2012 were concluded and the Trial Court could not proceed to judgment only because of the pendency of this petition, the Court considered that at that stage entertaining the application for clubbing of the suits may not be correct. ¶38

Sri Malledevirappa Vs Sri Sadashiva — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:13318 W.P. No.2909/2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.2909/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SRI. MALLEDEVIRAPPA S/O LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. KYATHANABEEDU LAKYA HOBLI CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. SADASHIVA S/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶12

SRI. GIRISH S/O VEERABHADREGOWDA ALIAS BAKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. BOTH ARE R/AT. KYATHANABEEDU LAKYA HOBLI, CHIKMAGALUR TALUK.

¶13

THE P.D.O. LAKYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH LAKYA VILLAGE AND POST CHIKMAGALUR TALUK.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. GURURAJ R, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. YADUNANDAN N, ADV., FOR R3)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:13318 W.P. No.2909/2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.2.1.2020 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO CLUB O.S.NO.214/2012 WITH O.S.511/2012 BOTH THE SUITS PENDING DISPOSAL ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKMAGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR & ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 02.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.214/2012 by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamgaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to club O.S.Nos.214/2012 and O.S.No.511/2012, was rejected.

¶24

Sri.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the Trial Court erroneously rejected the application filed by the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:13318 W.P. No.2909/2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

plaintiff to club both the suits as the issues involved in both the suits as well as the parties were common. It is submitted that on an earlier occasion also, similar application filed by the plaintiff was rejected. However, the plaintiff was able to point out the changed circumstances in the application but the same has not been considered by the Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition to avoid conflicting judgment from the Trial Court where both the suits are pending.

¶30

Per contra , Sri.Gururaj R., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Yadunandan N., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, support the impugned order of the Trial Court and submit that this Court should refrain the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, solely on the ground that the arguments of the parties in O.S.No.214/2012 are concluded long back and the Trial Court was about to post the matter for judgment but could

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:13318 W.P. No.2909/2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

not post it in view of the pendency of the writ petition.

¶35

Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

¶36

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶37

counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.

¶38

It is to be noticed that the Trial Court, under the impugned order, refused to exercise the discretionary power to club O.S.No.214/2012 and O.S.No.511/2012. It is not in dispute that both the suits are pending before the same Court and are between the same parties. It is also to be noticed that now in O.S.No.214/2012, the arguments are concluded and due to the pendency of this petition, the Trial Court could not proceed to pass the judgment. In view of the specific stand of the respondent, I am of the considered view that at this stage, entertaining

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:13318 W.P. No.2909/2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the application for clubbing of the suits may not be correct. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order of the Trial Court.

¶43

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶44

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri Malledevirappa v. Sri Sadashiva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Malledevirappa v. Sri Sadashiva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Munithayamma Vs Smt. Muniyamma

Sri. B.K. Krishnakumar Vs Sri B D Basavaraju

Mr. Muniraju .a Vs the Regional Manager

Sri. Arunkumar .D Vs the Managing Director

Smt H K Bhagyamma Vs B M Thippeswamy

Halligowda Vs Sri Santhosh Kumar C C