Writ Petition No. 30161 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19862 WP No.30161 of 2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.30161 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SANDHYA E. RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O DR. EKANATHA RAO R/AT NO.619, BHAVANI NILAYA 38TH MAIN ROAD IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BANGALORE-560 098. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARASIMHA PRASAD S.D. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. SURYAKALA S. CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS (ALLEGED ) WIFE OF LATE SUDARSHAN CHAVAN R/AT NO.1, R.B. LANE AKKIPET, BANGALORE-560 053. 2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003. 4. THE REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19862 WP No.30161 of 2019 HC-KAR CHICKPETE SUB-DIVISION CHICKPETE BANGALORE-560 053.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. S.N. PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV., FOR R2 TO R4 [ABSENT]) - - - …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.06.2019, ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS, EXAMINE THE SAME AND BE PLEASED TO ISSUE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7, FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN, U/S 10 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SAID O.S.NO.26085/2009, PENDING DISPOSAL OF SAID O.S.NO.1414/2008 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR, VIDE ANNEXURE-A HEREIN & ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.06.2019 passed on I.A.No.7 filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in O.S.No.26085/2009, seeking stay of the further proceedings of O.S.No.26085/2009 pending disposal of O.S.No.1414/2008 on the file of the City Civil Judge (CCH-53) at Bengaluru, which came to be rejected. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19862 WP No.30161 of 2019 HC-KAR 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Narasimha Prasad S.D., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 has filed O.S.No.26085/2009 claiming to be the second wife of late Sudarshan Chavan and in the said suit, the petitioner herein has filed detailed written statement denying that the respondent No.1 is the wife of late Sudarshan Chavan. The issues in the said suit as well as the earlier suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1414/2008 are substantially one and the same. It is submitted that unless the status of the respondent No.1 is decided in the earlier suit filed by the petitioner, the later suit cannot be proceeded. If the later suit filed by the respondent No.1 is allowed to proceed, there may be divergent finding. Hence, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application for stay of the later suit filed by the respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner solely on the ground that the issues were framed in the year 2011, the trial has already commenced and the present application is filed belatedly and the suit is 10 years old. Such a finding of the Trial Court is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19862 WP No.30161 of 2019 HC-KAR perverse as the issues involved in both the suits are substantially same. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES Vs. C.PARAMESHWARA1. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by staying the further proceedings in the suit instituted by the respondent No.1 till the disposal of O.S.No.1414/2008. 4. Per contra, Sri.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the nature of both the suits between the parties is altogether different. The prayer in the suit of the petitioner is for declaration, delivery of vacant possession and mandatory injunction and the suit filed by the respondent No.1 is for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos.3 and 4-BBMP officials to cancel the khata effected in favour of the petitioner and other prayers. Hence, the issues involved in both the suits are distinct. It is also submitted that the suit schedule properties in both the suits are different. Hence, the 1 (2005) 2 SCC 256 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19862 WP No.30161 of 2019 HC-KAR scope of both the suits are distinct and is required to be adjudicated independently. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. 6. The pleading and material available on record indicates that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.1414/2008 against the respondent No.1 and the BBMP seeking prayer to declare that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, direct the respondent No.1 to handover vacant possession of the property in favour of the petitioner and mandatory injunction directing the respondent -BBMP to effect the khata of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner. The suit schedule property in the aforesaid suit is property bearing No.334, 'Chitrakoot', East Road, 8th Cross, Lakshmi Road, Ward No.70, Shanthinagara, Bengaluru. Admittedly, later the respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.26085/2009 against the petitioner herein and the officials of the BBMP seeking decree of mandatory injunction - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19862 WP No.30161 of 2019 HC-KAR directing the defendant Nos.3 and 4 therein to cancel the khata effected in favour of the petitioner and enter the khata in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property. Further, prayer of mandatory injunction against the petitioner herein from disturbing or meddling with the suit schedule property including alienation, encumbrance, etc. In the aforesaid suit, suit schedule property is shown as property bearing Nos.171/1, 172 and 173 situated at Arcot, Srinivasachar steet, Bengaluru measuring East to West: 61.6 ft. and North to South: 39.40 ft. The aforesaid admitted facts clearly demonstrate that though the suit filed by the respondent No.1 herein is at a later point in time than the suit filed by the petitioner, however, the nature of relief sought in both the suits are different. In the suit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is seeking a declaration of ownership with regard to the distinct property and consequential prayers, whereas the suit filed by the respondent No.1 is mainly against the BBMP officials to cancel the khata effected in favour of the petitioner and further to effect the khata in favour of the respondent No.1 with regard to the distinct property referred supra. In view of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19862 WP No.30161 of 2019 HC-KAR the distinct relief sought, pleadings on record and the issue involved, there cannot be any stay of the subsequent suit. 7. Section 10 of the CPC provides for stay of proceedings with the trial of any suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit between the same parties. In the case on hand, the issues involved in both the suits are substantially different issues as the relief claimed in both the suits are distinct and the suit schedule properties in both the suits are different. It would be useful to refer to paragraph 8 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, referred supra. "8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19862 WP No.30161 of 2019 HC-KAR simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical." 8. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the issues involved in both the suits are distinct and has rejected the application. I do not find any perversity or error in the finding recorded by the Trial Court calling for interference in this petition. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19862 WP No.30161 of 2019 HC-KAR 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1