Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 5 (KAR)

T. Krishna v. Govinda Reddy

2013-01-02

H.BILLAPPA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. In these writ petitions and under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 06.03.2012, passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.335/2006 on IA.No.8. 2. By the impugned order the Trial Court has allowed IA.No.8 and ordered to club O.S. No. 335/2006 with O.S.No.243/2006 and record common evidence in O.S.No.335/2006. 3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions. 4. The petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.243/2006 (old No.459/1998) for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondents -1 to 4 have filed suit in O.S.No.335/2006 (old No.548/2000) for declaration and other reliefs. The respondents - 1 to 4 have filed IA.No.8 to club O.S.No.335/2006 with O.S.No.243/2006. The Trial Court has allowed the application. Therefore, these writ petitions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted the trial Court has erred while clubbing the cases. Further, he submitted that the parties are different and the subject matter is also different and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in ordering for clubbing of the cases. He also submitted that the reliefs claimed are different and the petitioner has claimed only 02 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/15 of Thirupalya Village and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 6. As against this, the learned AGA supported the impugned order. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the impugned order calls for interference?" 9. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.243/2006 has been filed by the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit in O.S.No.335/2006 has been filed by the respondents - 1 to 4 for declaration and other reliefs. The subject matter of O.S. No. 243/ 2006 and O.S.No.335/2006 is Sy.No.2/15 of Thirupalya Village. Therefore, to avoid conflicts of decisions, the trial Court has ordered to club the cases. I do not find any error or illegality in it. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in these writ petitions and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. The learned AGA is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks.