IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25114 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.3588/2006 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. GEORGE, KALLUKARAN HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 2. ROSILY, W/O. GEORGE, KALLUKARAN HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA VILLAG, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MR.K.M.ANEESH MR.SUMESH KUMAR N.C RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SIVARAMAN,PULLIKKATHARA HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 2. OMANA, W/O. SIVARAMAN, PULLIKKATHARA HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. ADV. MR.RAJIT FOR R1 & R2 MR.RANJIT BABU FOR R1 & R2 MR.V.V.JOY FOR R1 & R2 MR.LOWEL CHERIAN FOR R1 & R2 MR.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25114 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT:P1: PLAINT IN.O.S.NO.3588/2006 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2: PLAINT IN O.S.NO.3098/2006 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P3: TRIAL PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P4: ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR IN I.A.NO.10030/2008 IN .S.NO.3588/2006 DATED 5.08.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25114 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction and call for the records of the case leading to Exhibit P4 order and to quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the Munsiff Court, Thrissur to try jointly the suits numbered as O.S.No.3098/2006 and O.S.No.3588/2006 pending before that court.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.3588 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for fixation of boundary and recovery of possession, and the respondent is the defendant. Respondent has filed another suit as O.S.No.3098 of 2006 seeking a decree of mandatory injunction and also damages and the present petitioner is the defendant therein. When the suit filed by the respondent came up in the special list for trial petitioner moved an application for joint trial of that suit with his suit, O.S.No.3588 of 2006 contending that the questions to be adjudicated in both the suits are one and the same. The application W.P.(C).No.25114 of 2009 - O 2 was opposed to by the respondent. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed the application vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Respondent has filed the suit O.S.No.3098 of 2006 canvassing a case that there is threat of injury and continuous nuisance by the falling of coconuts, cadjins etc. from the three coconut trees situate in the property of the defendant over the shed where he is conducting an industrial concern. He therefore sought for a mandatory injunction for cutting and removal of those trees claimed damages for the loss alleged to have been caused by the falling of the coconuts over the roof of his shed. A few months after institution of his suit the plaintiff/petitioner filed another suit O.S.No.3588 of 2006 contending that his title deed over the property takes in a portion of the property in the possession of respondent, allegedly trespassed upon, and seeking its recovery and also fixation of the boundaries of his property. It is seen from the impugned order passed by the learned Munsiff that previously petitioner had moved an application for joint trial when the suit of W.P.(C).No.25114 of 2009 - O 3 the respondent O.S.No.3098 of 2006 came up in the list for trial. At that time, taking note of the application moved by the petitioner that was in the year 2008, the case was removed from the list and thereafter petitioner did not pursue for joint trial and that petition was dismissed. When the case of the respondent came up in the list again he moved an application to restore his previous application and that being allowed it was heard and disposed by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P4 order. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff holding that a joint trial of the two suits in the given facts of the case is not practicable nor feasible. Respondent has canvassed a case that there is continuous nuisance by the falling of coconuts over the sheds under his occupation. His suit has come up in the list for trial more than once. A joint trial will only prolong the litigation and, further, nuisance alleged by the plaintiff would continue unabated. I find no merit in the challenges raised against Ext.P4 order. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-