1 : in the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.107342 & 107570/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SHRI. BASAVANEPPA S/O. SHIDDAPPA INCHAL AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH S HATTIKATAGI, ADV. ) AND 1. SHRI. ISHWARAPPA S/O. SHIDDAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 85 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R./O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SHRI. ULAVAPPA S/O. SHIDDAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 3. SMT. BASAWWA W/O. IRAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. INCHAL GALLI, : 2 : BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 4. SHRI. SHRISHAIL S/O. IRAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. R/O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 5. SHRI.BASAVARAJ S/O. IRAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 6. SHRI.MAHANTESH S/O. IRAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 7. SHRI. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. SHIDDAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 8. SHRI. SOMALINGAPPA S/O. GIRIMALLAPPA HOTI AGE: MAJOR OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 9. SMT.KAMALAWWA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 10. SMT.SHIVABASAWWA ISHWARAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. INCHAL GALLI, : 3 : BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 11. SHRI.SHIVAPPA S/O. BASAPPA WALI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. UPPINKHOOT, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 12. SHRI. FAKIRAPPA IRAPPA DODAWAD AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. NAGANUR CHAWL, FARM ROAD BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM 13. SHRI.MALLIKARJUN FAKIRAPPA DODAWAD AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. NAGANUR CHAWL, FARM ROAD BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 14. SHRI. ISWAR FAKIRAPPA DODAWAD AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. NAGANUR CHAWL, FARM ROAD BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 15. SMT.DODDAWWA KALLAPPA DEYANNAVAR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. NAGANUR CHAWL, FARM ROAD BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 16. SHRI.SHIVAPPA FAKIRAPPA DODAWAD AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. NAGANUR CHAWL, FARM ROAD BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. : 4 : SMT.NAGAWWA ISHWARAPPA BORAKANNAVAR SINCE DEAD BY LRS: 17. SHRI.SOMASHEKHAR ISHWARAPPA BORAKANNAVAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. R/O.BASAVANAGARI, IIIRD CROSS, MURGOD ROAD, BAILHONGAL. TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 18. SMT.SHOBA PANCHAPPA MATANAVAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. R/O.BASAVANAGARI, IIIRD CROSS, MURGOD ROAD, BAILHONGAL. TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 19. SMT.SUREKHA D/O ISHWARAPPA BORAKANNAVAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O.BASAVANAGARI, IIIRD CROSS, MURGOD ROAD, BAILHONGAL. TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 20. SHRI. CHANNAPPA S/O. BASAPPA WALI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. UPPINKHOOT, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 21. SHRI.SHANKAR S/O. BASAPPA WALI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. UPPINKHOOT, : 5 : TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 22. SMT.IRAWWA D/O. BASAPPA WALI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. UPPINKHOOT, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 23. SMT.SHIVABASAWWA W/O. ISHWARAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. INCHAL GALLI, H.NO.2253, TQ: BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 24. SHRI.MUDAKAPPA RODDANAVAR AGED ABOUT: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HIRENANDIHALLI VILLAGE BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 25. SMT.SUREKHA W/O. UMESH BOGUR AGED ABOUT: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. MARAKUMBI VILLAGE BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 26. KUMAR SANTOSH S/O. MUDAKAPPA RODDANAVAR AGED ABOUT: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HIRENANDIHALLI VILLAGE BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM : 6 : 27. SHRI.MALLIKAJAPPA S/O.IRAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. MARADI GALLI, H NO. 2260/A, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. 28. SMT.SHIVABAYAWWA W/O.APPAYAPPA KADAKOL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O.NEAR MADIWALESHWAR MATH BAILHONGAL TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 29. SMT.NEELAWWA W/O. SHANKAREPPA KATAKOL AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. INCHAL GALLI, H NO. 2260/A, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM 30. SMT.BASAVVA W/O. BASAVANNEPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. INCHAL GALLI, BAILHONGAL DIST: BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT V MOGALI, ADV. FOR R.1-R7, R.9 & R.10) : 7 : THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2014 PASSED ON I.A.NO.18 IN O.S.NO.6 OF 2008 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BAILHONGAL VIDE ANNEXURE-J BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.18 AS PRAYED FOR, AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The contesting respondents are respondents 1, 7, 9, and 10. They have filed statement of objections and the same is taken on record. Notice to the other respondents is not required. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Counsel for the respondents 1, 7, 9 and 10. 3. In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.4.2014 passed by the trial court in O.S.No.6/2008 on I.A.No.18. : 8 : 4. By the impugned order dated 29.4.2014, the trial court has rejected I.A.No.18 filed by the petitioner to club O.S.No.6/2008 with O.S.No.12/2009 and try them together. 5. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions. 6. Briefly stated the facts are; The petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.6/2008 for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The respondents 11, 20, 21 and 22 have filed suit in O.S.No.12/2009 for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The trial has commenced in O.S.No.6/2008. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.18 to club O.S.No.6/2008 with O.S.No.12/2009 and try them together. The trial court by its order dated 29.4.2014 has rejected I.A.No.18. Therefore, these writ petitions. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also : 9 : submitted that the suit properties in O.S.No.6/2008 and O.S.No.12/2009 are one and the same and the parties are same. Therefore, it was proper to club O.S.No.6/2008 with O.S.No.12/2009 and try them together. Instead of that, the trial court has rejected the application which is not correct. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 8. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1, 7, 9 and 10 submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the suit properties in O.S.No.6/2008 are different from the suit properties in O.S.No.12/2009. The subject matter in O.S.No.6/2008 is hit by the principles of res judicata. The trial has commenced in O.S.No.6/2008. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 10. The point that arise for my consideration is; Whether the impugned order calls for interference? : 10 : 11. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.6/2008 has ben filed by petitioner for partition and separate possession. The respondents 11, 20, 21 and 22 have filed suit in O.S.No.12/2009 for partition and separate possession. Except two items, the rest of the properties in both the suits are same. The trial has already commenced in OS.No.6/2008. If the subject matter and parties are same, it would attract Section 10 of CPC. Instead of that IA.No.18 has been filed to club the cases which is not correct. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not call for interference. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sub/.