IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19571 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 6069/2006 IN OS.370/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR,S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, CHAYATHU VISARAM, CHITTUVEETTU MURI, THOLIKKIDU VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ANANDHA SUBRAMANNYA IYYER, S/O. ESAWARA IYYER, AGED 73, PALACE VIEW, VADAKKUMKARA MURI, PAZHAVADI VILLAGE, PAZHAVADI GRAMAM, THEKKUMKARA MURI, NEDUMAMGADU VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.19571/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 198/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD EXT.P2 COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 370/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD EXT.P3 COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 686/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD EXT.P4 COPY OF IA 6069/2006 IN OS 370/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD EXT.P5 COPY OF OBJECTION TO EXT.P4 EXT.P6 COPY OF ORDER IN IA 6069/06 IN OS 370/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD. //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19571 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.370 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Nedumangad has filed this Writ Petition challenging that part of order dated 18.07.2007 on I.A.No.6069 of 2006 in the said suit to the extent learned Munsiff has disallowed joint trial of O.S.No.198 of 2005 along with two other suits referred to in the said order. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, subject matter of the suits is one and same though there is no strict identity of parties. It is the contention of learned counsel that plaintiff in O.S.No.198 of 2005 which was not allowed to be tried jointly with other two suits is defendant in O.S.No.370 of 2005 and plaintiff in O.S.No.686 of 2005. According to the learned counsel defendant No.1 in O.S.No.198 of 2005 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.370 of 2005. It is the contention of the learned counsel that it was merely for the reason of the parties being different that joint trial of O.S.No.198 of 2005 along with the two other suits was not allowed. Learned counsel for respondents contended that impugned order was passed on 18.07.2007 and the Writ Petition is filed at the fag end of the proceedings when the case was included in the list for trial in the year 2009. 2. It is not as if for the purpose of joint trial all the parties to the cases must be the same. What is necessary is whether the subject matter of the suit WP(C) No.19571/2009 2 is same and some common question of law or fact arise in the suits (See Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad (2007(1) KLT 910 (SC), paragraph Nos.13 to 16). As I stated observation of learned Munsiff that parties in O.S.No.198 of 2005 and the other suits are different cannot as such be accepted. But there is dispute between the parties before me whether the whole or any portion of the subject matter of O.S.No.198 of 2005 is involved in any of the two other suits. While learned counsel for petitioner contends that subject matter of O.S.No.198 of 2005 is also the subject matter of O.S.No.686 of 2005, learned counsel for respondents contend otherwise. That is a matter which the learned Munsiff has to decide after going through the respective plaints and other materials on record. Resultantly the order under challenge to the extent that learned Additional Munsiff has disallowed joint trial of O.S.No.198 of 2005 along with two other suits mentioned in the order is set aside and that matter is remitted to the learned Munsiff for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. Writ Petition is allowed as above. I.A.No.6912 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks