1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

WRIT PETITION NO.51362/2015(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

Thimmaiah S/o Badige Munithayappa Aged about 74 years R/at Gandhi Square Hosapete, Anekal Town District.

Represented by GPA Holders

Sri K Ramesh S/o Krishnappa Aged about 45 years R/at Madapatna Village Haragadde Post, Jigani Hobli Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

Sri C Mallesh S/o Chikkaramareddy Aged about 38 years R/at Harapanahalli Village Jigani Hobli Anekal Taluk Bangalore District. ... PETITIONER

(By Sri T N Vishwanatha, Adv.)

2

AND :

Dr K T Prakash Reddy Aged about 49 years S/o Thimma Reddy Presently R/at Hagari Bommanahalli Village and Post District.

Permanent Residence No.335, 2 nd Phase, 2 nd Cross Royal Lake Front Residency Jambusavari Dinne J.P. Nagar VIII Phase Bangalore-560 078. ….RESPONDENT

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of praying to quash the impugned order dated 27.08.2015 passed on Misc.P.No.57/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District vide Annexure-F and etc.,

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

27.8.2015 passed by the trial Court which is produced as per Annexure ‘F’.

3

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two suits are filed, one by the petitioner- plaintiff in O.S.No.543/2010 and another by the respondent-defendant in O.S.No.218/2008 seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. He has submitted that the properties in both the suits are one and the same. Hence, he has filed the application under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of suit from the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Anekal to the Civil Judge

(Sr.Dn.), Anekal wherein the suit for declaration is pending. The said application is rejected. The learned counsel submitted that the pleadings presented by the petitioner and his written statement filed in the suit filed by the respondent clearly shows that properties are one and the same. Hence, to avoid conflicting decision, it was necessary to get the suit transferred and the trial

Court has wrongly rejected the application. 4

4. I have perused the grounds urged in the writ petition and also the order of the trial Court dated

27.8.2015 on the application filed by the petitioner. I have also perused the pleadings of the parties, more particularly, the schedules in both the suits.

5. Looking to the schedule of the suit, it is seen that in both the suits the properties are not one and the same. The trial Court in its order has also observed that the subject matter of two suits are different and in one suit, the trial is in progress and that for a period of five years, parties have not filed any such application.

Considering these aspects of the matter, the trial Court has rejected the application.

6. Looking to the reasons adopted by the trial

Court, I am of the opinion that there are no just and

5

valid grounds for this Court to interfere with the order of the trial Court in this petition.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.

Sd/- JUDGE

bkp CT-SG