ORDER 1. Though matters are listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned advocates, they are taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Sri Anant Hegde, Sri A.P. Hegde Janmane 3. Parties to this litigation have been litigating over a shop premises bearing No.249 situated at Sirsi Municipal town limits which undisputedly belongs to the Wakf Committee (petitioner in W.P.Nos.102138140/2014). 4. A suit in O.S.No.33/2006 was filed by one Sri Nazeer Akkansaab Negnal 3rd respondent (in W.P.Nos.102138140/2014) against respondent Nos.1, 2 herein and Wakf Board seeking for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment and he should not be dispossessed without due process of law. An ex-parte interim order of injunction came to be passed on 22.03.2006 not to dispossess the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.102138140/2014 along with a firm by name M/s. Sirsi Garments filed a suit in O.S.No.16/2006 against one Sri Munavar Budansab seeking for an order of perpetual injunction against him that he should not interfere with plaintiff’s and Sri Vijaykumar B. Horatti, learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the case papers. peaceful possession and enjoyment of shop premises contending interalia that they had taken the premises on lease from the Wakf Committee. In the said suit also, an exparte interim order of injunction came to be passed on 23.01.2006 not to dispossess the plaintiff therein. In view of the fact that both the plaintiffs in both the suits claimed to be in possession, law and order situation cropped up. Hence, the jurisdictional police is said to have intervened in the matter and locked the premises and deposited the key of the shop premises in O.S.No.33/2006. Both the plaintiffs filed I.A.Nos.4 and 5 seeking for handing over the key of shop premises in question to them. Both the applications were heard and on account of rival contentions by the respective plaintiffs contending interalia that they are in possession, trial Court appointed a Court Commissioner to ascertain as to what was the nature of goods found in the shop premises in question and after receipt of the Commissioner’s report that mattresses are located in the shop premises, I.A.No.4 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.33/2006 came to be allowed and I.A.No.5 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2006 came to be dismissed by order dated 25.03.2006. Being aggrieved by this order, plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2006 filed W.P.No.5032/2006. In the said writ petition, an interim order of stay of order dated 25.03.2006 was passed on 10.04.2006. However, by virtue of I.A.No.4 having been allowed, key was handed over to the plaintiff in O.S.No.33/2006 by the Court under due acknowledgement as reflected in the order-sheet dated 27.03.2006. Subsequently, Writ Petition No.5032/2006 filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.33/2006 i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.16/2006 came to be allowed by this Court by order dated 11.12.2008 and impugned orders came to be set aside and trial Court directed to club both the suits i.e., O.S.No.16/2006 and O.S.No.33/2006 for being disposed of on merits holding trial on day to day basis. By virtue of the said order passed in W.P.no.5032/2006, I.A.No.7 came to be filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.33/2006 and said application came to be contested by the plaintiff. Trial court by order dated 09.03.2010 allowed the application and directed plaintiff therein to return the key of shop premises in question which was received by him from the said Court as per order passed on 25.03.2006 since W.P.No.5032/2006 had been allowed. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.33/2006 who had filed W.P.No.5032/2006 were fully aware of the fact that key of the shop premises in question had been delivered to the plaintiff in O.S.No.33/2006 by the trial court itself on 27.03.2006 and despite this fact being within their knowledge, for reasons best known, it was not brought to the notice of this court. 5. Be that as it may. Trial court having allowed I.A.No.7 which undisputedly has reached finality, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed one more application in I.A.No.8 for appointment of Court Commissioner to lock the suit schedule premises and hand over the key back to court for complying with order passed on I.A.No.7. Said application has been allowed and Court bailiff has been appointed as Court Commissioner by order dated 23.02.2012 vide Annexure-A. 6. On coming to know of this order, one Sri Rafiq Sab K. Budansab filed two I.As. in O.S.No.33/2006 namely IA Nos.11 and 13 seeking for getting himself impleaded in the said suit on the ground that he is in lawful possession of the shop premises in question and also seeking recall of order dated 23.03.2012 allowing I.A.No.8. On coming to know of this order, one Sri Rafiq Sab K. Budansab filed two I.As. in O.S.No.33/2006 namely IA Nos.11 and 13 seeking for getting himself impleaded in the said suit on the ground that he is in lawful possession of the shop premises in question and also seeking recall of order dated 23.03.2012 allowing I.A.No.8. Both these applications have been dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2013 AnnexuresP and Q which is impugned in W.P.Nos.103016/2014 & 103100101/2014. The grievance of said applicant is that he has taken the shop premises in question on lease from Wakf Board on 01.09.2008 and he is in possession and enjoyment of shop premises in question and on account of Wakf Board refusing to receive the rent and attempting to interfere with his possession, he was forced to file a suit in O.S.No.86/2010 for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant (Wakf Board) from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and an exparte interim order of temporary injunction came to be passed on 15.03.2010 vide Annexure-J which is undisputedly in operation till date and as such, he claimed to be a person interested in the lis and as such he filed applications I.A.Nos.11 and 13 in O.S.No.33/2006 for the reliefs noted hereinabove. 7. The above narrated facts would clearly indicate that in respect of the shop premises in question, three interim orders have been granted in favour of each of the plaintiffs on 23.03.2006, 23.01.2006 and 15.03.2010 in O.S.No.33/2006, O.S.No.16/2006, and O.S.No.86/2010 respectively. The pleadings in O.S.No.16/2006 namely the plaint averments would indicate that plaintiffs therein are claiming to have been inducted as tenant of the shop premises in question on 13.08.1990 and they have also claimed that they have been paying rents to the Wakf Committee from whom they claim to have taken the premises in question on rent. The said lease deed has been produced before the trial court and marked as Ex.P.1. Surprisingly, plaintiff has not made the owner of the property namely Wakf as a party to the said suit. The said lease deed has been produced before the trial court and marked as Ex.P.1. Surprisingly, plaintiff has not made the owner of the property namely Wakf as a party to the said suit. However, defendant in the said suit who appeared and contested the matter by filing a detailed written statement contended that premises in question was sublet to him by the plaintiffs after receiving a consideration of Rs.1 lakh by way of cheque drawn on Corporation Bank and Rs.50,000/was paid to nd plaintiff therein and there was a written agreement to the said effect and the agreed rate of rent was Rs.3,750/out of which Rs.750/was payable to the Wakf Committee and Rs.3,000/was payable to the plaintiffs and as such he claimed to be in possession of shop premises. In fact, this is seriously disputed by plaintiffs in O.S.No.16/2006 and the matter is at the stage of trial. Said Munavar Budansab who is the defendant in O.S.No.16/2006 is said to have handed over possession of the shop premises back to the Wakf Committee in the year 2005 and by virtue of the same, plaintiff in O.S.No.33/2006 is said to have been inducted as a tenant of the shop premises in question by Wakf Committee and thereafter he having handed over the key back to the Committee, plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 was said to have been inducted as a tenant in the shop premises in question with effect from 01.09.2008 by the Wakf Committee. Above referred facts would indicate that plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 has continued in possession of the shop premises in question at least from 2008 prima facie. 8. Plaintiff in O.S.No.33/2006 had obtained the possession of the shop premises after it was locked by the police authorities through the process of the court on 23.07.2006 and by virtue of same having been handed to Wakf Committee they in turn have inducted plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 and tenant of shop in question with effect from 01.09.2008. then from 2008 i.e., till date, the plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 has continued in possession of the shop premises and he is said to be paying rents. This fact is seriously disputed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2006. However, owner of the premises namely the Wakf Committee claims or admits that plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 is in possession of the shop premises. 9. then from 2008 i.e., till date, the plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 has continued in possession of the shop premises and he is said to be paying rents. This fact is seriously disputed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2006. However, owner of the premises namely the Wakf Committee claims or admits that plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 is in possession of the shop premises. 9. When there is a rival contention with regard to possession over the shop premises in question and the rival claimant files application to get himself impleaded in the suit in O.S.No.33/2006, he would definitely be a proper party in the said suit inasmuch as any decree that may be passed either in O.S.No.33/2006 or O.S.No.16/2006 would adversely affect his rights and as such while considering his claim over possession of shop in question, application for impleading could not have been rejected or in the alternate the said suit O.S.No.86/2010 could have been ordered to be clubbed along with the present suits O.S.No.16/2006 and O.S.No.33/2006. In fact, plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 at the first available opportunity i.e., immediately after the order allowing I.A.No.8 came to be passed on 23.03.2012 in O.S.No.33/2006, he has filed I.A.No.13 on 25.02.2012 to recall the said order. This would clearly indicate that plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 has been diligent and asserting his right and possession over the shop premises in question. In fact, owner of the shop premises i.e., Wakf Committee is sailing with the plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010 and also admitting that he is in possession of the shop premises in question. In that view of the matter, trial Court would not have allowed I.A.No.8 for appointment of Commissioner to lock the shop premises and depositing the key in court by impugned order dated 23.02.2012 in the peculiar circumstances of the case. 10. Now, much water has flown down the bridge namely from the year 2008 to 2014 namely six years have lapsed. During this period of six years, plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2006 was undisputedly not in possession of the shop premises. No iota of material has been produced before the trial Court or before this Court to substantiate his claim of possession in this regard except his self serving testimony. The very fact that I.A.No.8 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2006 i.e., defendant Nos. No iota of material has been produced before the trial Court or before this Court to substantiate his claim of possession in this regard except his self serving testimony. The very fact that I.A.No.8 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2006 i.e., defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.No.33/2006 seeking locking of the premises in question would indicate that plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2006 are not in possession of the shop premises in question. In the event of trial Court coming to a conclusion that either of the rival claimants were in possession of the shop premises in question at the undisputed point of time, it would be at liberty to mould the relief and restore possession of the property in favour of such person or persons. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the parties to seek for necessary relief namely to seek for restitution of possession of the shop premises in question on suits being disposed of. In view of the same, question of remitting the matter to the trial court to reconsider I.A.No.8 or passing orders therein shall be an exercise in futility or it would not serve any fruitful purpose. It would suffice if a direction is issued to the trial court to take into file O.S.No.86/2010 along with other two (2) suits i.e., O.S.No.33/2006 and O.S.No.16/2006 and dispose of all the three suits by taking into consideration the direction issued by a Coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.5032/2006 on 11.12.2008. With this observation, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) W.P.Nos.102138140/2014 are hereby allowed. (ii) Order passed on I.A.No.8 dated 23.02.2012 Annexure-A is hereby quashed and I.A.No.8 is hereby dismissed. (iii) W.P.Nos.103016/2014 & 103100101/2014 is hereby disposed of in the light of the observations made hereinabove. (iv) Trial court is directed to take into its file O.S.No.86/2010 which is now pending before it and dispose of all the three suits on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously by keeping in mind the observation made herein above and orders passed in W.P.No.5032/2006 dated 11.12.2008. Ordered accordingly.