Smt Shanthamma M v. Smt Jayamma L

( , ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(5 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.T.(NARENDRA(PRASAD( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(31208(OF(2025((GM-CPC)( BETWEEN:(( SMT.,SHANTHAMMA,M, AGED,ABOUT,71,YEARS, W/O,SRI,LATE,L,GOKUL,REDDY, R/AT,AGARA,VILLAGE,,HSR,LAYOUT, BEGUR,HOBLI,,BANGALORE,,560102, …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,N,SATISH.,,ADVOCATE),

AND:(

1., SMT.,JAYAMMA,L,

W/O,SRI,JAYARAM,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS, R/AT,AGARA,VILLAGE, TH 6 ,,CROSS,,24TH,MAIN, BANGALORE-560102., , Digitallytisignedtiby

2., SMT.,G.,LAVANYA, DHANALAKSHMI D/O,LATE,L.,GOKUL,REDDY,MURTHY AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS,Location:0HI GH COURTOF , KARNATAKA 3., SRI.,G.,LAKSHMINARAYANA,REDDY, S/O,LATE,L.,GOKUL,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS., ,

4., SRI,G,SANTHOSH,REDDY, , S/O,LATE,L.,GOKUL,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,42,YEARS., ,

5., SRI,G,SATHYANARAYANA,REDDY, S/O,LATE,L.,GOKUL,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS, R2,TO,R5,ARE,R/AT,, ( , ( ( BEHIND,VENKATESWARA,TEMPLE, AGARA,VILLAGE,,HSR,LAYOUT,POST, SARJAPURA,ROAD,,BEGUR,HOBLI, BANGALORE,SOUTH,TALUK, BANGALORE-560,102., ,

6., SRI,,S,RAGUNATH, S/O,LATE,H,SHANKAR, MAJOR, ,

7., M/S,AKSHAY, PROPERTY,DEVELOPERS,PVT,LTD., REP.,BY,ITS,DIRECTOR, SRI,S,RAGHUNATH, THR6,&,R7,ARE,R/AT,NO,306,17 ,C,MAIN, RD3 ,,BLOCK,,RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560,010., ,

8., SRI,CHANDRASHEKAR,REDDY, S/O,LATE,K.BALARAMA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,88,YEARS, ,

9., SMT,K.MADAVI, W/O,SRI,K,ANILKUMAR,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS, ,

10., SMT,K.SUGUNAMMA, W/O,SRI,CHANDRASHEKARA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,81,YEARS, R8,TO,R10,ARE,R/AT,MUNAGALLY,VILLAGE, BUCHIREDDY,PALERN,MANDALAM, NELLUR,DISTRICT-524305., ,

11., SRI,V,MAHESH, S/O,SRI,VENKATA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, R/AT,NO,2990/C,,12TH,A,MAIN, NDHAL,2 ,STAGE,,BENGALURU-560,008., ,

12., SRI,ANILKUMAR,REDDY, S/O,SRI,CHANDRASHEKARA,REDDY, ( , ( ( AGED,ABOUT,61,YEARS, R/AT,MUNAGALLY,VILLAGE,, BUCHIREDDY,PALEM,MANDALAM, NELLUR,DISTRICT, ANDHARA,PRADESH-524305., ,

13., SRI,RAMAKRISHNA,REDDY, S/O,R.,NARAYANA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,89,YEARS, ,

14., SRI,R,PARANDAMA,REDDY, S/O,R,RAMAKRISHNA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,89,YEARS, ,

15., SRI,R.VENKATAREAMI,REDDY, S/O,R.,NARAYANA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,86,YEARS, R13,TO,R15,ARE,R/AT,, VIKRUTHAMALA,VILLAGE, YERPEDU,MANDALAUM, KALAHASTHI,TALUK, CHITTUR,DISTRICT, ANDHRA,PRADESH-517619., ,

16., SRI,B.BUGGAIAH, S/O,RANGAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,91,YEARS, R/AT,KOTTALAPALLI,, VELPUMADUGU,VILLAGE, VIDAPANAKAL,MANDAL, ANANTHAPURA,DISTRICT, ANDHRA,PRADESH-515870., ,

17., SRI,J,SATHYANARAYANA, AGED,ABOUT,87,YEARS, S/O,LATE,J.,LAKSHMAIAH, R/AT,TELAPORNU,VILLAGE, , GANNARAVARAM,TALUK, KRISHNA,DISTRICT, ANDHRA,PRADESH-533284., , ( , ( (

18., SMT,SUMITHRAMMA, W/O,LATE,B.V.SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,79,YEARS, R/AT,NO.66/A,,RAGHVENDRA,COLONY, CHAMARAJPET,,BANGALORE,560,018, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.M,S,VARADARAJAN,,ADVOCATE,FOR,C/R1), , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, , PRAYING, TO, A, WRIT, OF, CERTIORARI, QUASHING, THE, ORDERS, DATED:, 22.09.2025,, PASSED,BY,THE,PRINCIPAL,CITY,CIVIL,AND,SESSIONS,JUDGE, (CCH-1), AT, BANGALORE,, IN, MIS, NO., 269/2024, DISMISSING, THE, PETITION, UNDER, SECTION, 24, (1), (B), (II), OF, CIVIL, PROCEDURE,CODE,VIDE,ANNEXURE-A,AND,FOR,SUCH,OTHER, RELIEFS,WRIT,DIRECTIONS,,DECLARATIONS,AND,ORDERS,AS, THIS, HON'BLE, COURT, MAY, FIT, TO, GRANT, INCULDING, THE, COSTS,,,OF,,THIS,PETITION., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.T.,NARENDRA,PRASAD, ORAL(ORDER(

¶1In, this, writ, petition,, the, petitioner, has, called, in, question, the, order, dated, 22.09.2025, passed, by, the, Principal, City, Civil, and, Sessions, Judge,, Bengaluru, in, Misc.No.269/2024, vide, Annexure-A,, whereby,, the, miscellaneous,petition,filed,under,Section,24(1)(b)(ii),read, with,Section,151,of,CPC,has,been,dismissed.,,

¶2The petitioner herein was defendant No.1 in O.S.No.15741/2006 and also defendant No.2 in O.S.No.7850/2009. She filed a miscellaneous petition in Misc.No.269/2024 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for short), seeking transfer of the suit in O.S.No.7850/2009 pending before CCH-39 to CCH-22, wherein O.S.No.15741/2006 is pending, on the ground that the subject matter of the above suits is one and the same and the issues involved in the said suits are common. She further stated that if the suits are allowed to be decided by different Courts, there is a likelihood of the Courts recording contradictory findings and delivering divergent judgments. The said petition came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the two suits have been filed for partition and the family members involved in both the suits are the

same, except the purchaser. Some of the properties are not common in the two suits. If both the suits are clubbed, it would be convenient for the parties to adduce their evidence and a proper decree can be passed. There cannot be two preliminary decrees in respect of the same properties. Secondly, the application has been dismissed on the ground of delay. This Court, in an earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.24405/2023, granted liberty to the petitioner herein to seek clubbing of the suits, and such clubbing can take place only if the cases are transferred to the same Court. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petition, which is contrary to the observations of this Court.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that the suit in O.S.No.7850/2009 was filed in the year 2009 and the petitioner herein is also a party to the said suit. She has filed the miscellaneous petition after a lapse of more than 16 years seeking transfer of the said suit. In the said suit, the evidence has already been

completed. When the matter was posted for arguments, the miscellaneous petition has been filed only with an intention to drag or obstruct the proceedings. He further contended that any decree passed in O.S.No.7850/2009 would be binding on the parties in O.S.No.15741/2006. The Trial Court, after considering this aspect of the matter, has rightly dismissed the application.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶6It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a party in O.S.No.7850/2009 and she is aware that the properties involved in O.S.No.7850/2009 and O.S.No.15741/2006 are similar and she has participated in the proceedings. The evidence in O.S.No.7850/2009 has been completed. When the matter was posted for arguments, the miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking clubbing of the matters, that too after a lapse of more than 16 years. This clearly indicates that the petitioner intends to protract the proceedings. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had

filed an application under Section 10 of CPC seeking stay of the proceedings in O.S.No.15741/2006, which came to be dismissed. The same was confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.24405/2023 on

08.11.2023. Though an observation was made that it is open to the petitioner herein to file an appropriate application for clubbing of the suits, it does not mean that such an application must necessarily be allowed. The Trial Court, after verifying the records and hearing the parties, has rightly dismissed the application on the ground that it was filed after a long delay. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶7Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6