Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri.Sanjay S/O Dhanapal Chougala vs Col (Retd). Ranjit Sidram @ Appasaheb ... on 31 August, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC-D:12537
                                                      WP No. 148863 of 2020




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 148863 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
                 BETWEEN:
                 1.   SHRI. SANJAY S/O. DHANAPAL CHOUGALA,
                      AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER,
                      R/O. MAHAVEER NAGAR, CHIKODI,
                      TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.

                 2.   SMT. PADMA W/O. SANJAY CHOUGALA,
                      AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                      R/O. MAHAVEER NAGAR, CHIKODI,
                      TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.

                 3.   SMT. MEENAXI W/O. BASAVARAJ PATIL,
                      AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
                      R/O. SBI COLONY, CHIKODI,
                      NOW AT R/O. MAHAVEER NAGAR, CHIKODI,
                      TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
                                                                  ...PETITIONERS
                 (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
                 AND:

SAROJA           COL. (RETD.) RANJIT SIDRAM
HANGARAKI        @ APPASAHEB BANAHATTI,
Location: HIGH
                 AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER AND AGRICULTURIST,
COURT OF
KARANTAKA
                 R/O. B.C.85, CANTONMENT, BELAGAVI-590 001.
DHARWAD
BENCH                                                         ...RESPONDENT
                 (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
                      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
                 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
                 CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/08/2019
                 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCOPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
                 CHIKODI ON I.A. NO.16 IN O.S. NO.64/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

                       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
                 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                     -2-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC-D:12537
                                                 WP No. 148863 of 2020




                             ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application on I.A.No.16 wherein under Section 10 R/w Section 151 of CPC was invoked to stay the further proceedings in O.S.No.390/2007 contending that the both the suits are for the relief of partition and already suit for partition was filed in O.S.No.390/2007 and the same is pending before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belgaum and one more suit is also filed in O.S.No.64/2010. Hence, prayed the Court to till the disposal of O.S.No.390/2007 stay the proceedings in O.S.No.64/2010. The same is resisted by the counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contending that both the suits though filed for the relief of partition, suit properties are different, one is in respect of self-acquired -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:12537 WP No. 148863 of 2020 property of one Sidram and other properties are in respect of the ancestral properties of branch of one Ramachandra and hence, the Trial Court rightly rejected the application.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondent, no doubt both the suits are filed for the relief of partition and also learned counsel for the petitioners not disputes the fact that suit schedule properties which are mentioned in both the suits are different, one in respect of self-acquired property of one Sidram and other suit is for the relief of partition in respect of the ancestral properties which devolves upon the branch of Ramachandra. When such being the case, the question of stay of the other suit does not arise and the Trial Court also having taken note of said fact into consideration comes to the conclusion that though the parties are same, but subject matters of both the suits are different and subject matter in issue in the present suit is not directly and substantially evolves in O.S.No.390/2007 and having taken note of the said fact -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:12537 WP No. 148863 of 2020 into consideration, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application. Hence, there is no merit in the petition to quash the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.16.

4. In view of discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSP CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60