IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26958 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OS.362/2005 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SOMAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN, THAYYIL VEEDU, S.V.MARKET P.O., AYANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.VIMALAN RESPONDENT: --------------- SUDHA SOMAN.V., D/O.VIJAYAMMA, KOCHUMAITHANATHU VEEDU, S.V.MARKET P.O., AYANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER;S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO. 362/2005 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF PETITION IN OP NO. 129/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P3: COPY OF IA 1148/09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/7/09 IN IA 1148/09 IN OS 362/2005. R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO. 26958 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The dispute is basically one between the husband and the wife and the bone of contention is whether an item of property standing in the name of wife is really hers or deserves to be re-conveyed by the wife in the name of the husband. Two suits are pending, one filed by the wife and the other filed by the husband. They are both pending before the Family Court. In both suits, reliefs are claimed in respect of the very same property. O.P.No.129/2008 initiated by the husband and his relatives. In O.S.No.362/2005 filed by the wife, trial has already commenced. It is at this juncture that a petition was filed praying that the two suits may be taken up for trial together. That application was opposed. By the impugned order, Ext.P4, W.P.C. 26958/2009 -2- the learned Judge of the Family Court rejected the prayer by the following order: “Already evidence of plaintiff and D1 was recorded. So at this stage joint trial is not possible. I.A. is dismissed.” 2. We must frown upon the conduct of the petitioner not taking proper steps at the proper time to pray for joint trial. But all the same, we are satisfied that the prayer for joint trial is justified. Conflict of decisions deserves to be avoided and a comprehensive settlement of the outstanding disputes between the parties is certainly preferable. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that a joint trial can be directed subject, of course, to appropriate conditions. 3. In the result, a) this petition is allowed. b)The impugned order, Ext.P4 dated 3/7/2009 in I.A.No.1148/2009 in O.S.No.362/2005 is set aside. W.P.C. 26958/2009 -3- c) The court below is directed to conduct a joint trial of O.S.No.362/2005and O.P.No.129/2008 on condition that the petitioner pays to the respondent or deposits cost Rs.1,000/- before the court below within a period of fifteen days from today. If the cost is not deposited on or before 30/6/2010 as directed, Ext.P4 order shall remain in force and the court below shall immediately proceed to dispose of O.S.No.362/2005. If costs is deposited, the court below must proceed to dispose of both cases as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from 30/6/2010. 4. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The court below shall report compliance to this court. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. W.P.C. 26958/2009 -4- ks.