IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3006 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.217/08 & OS.687/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR OS.1066/2009 of II ADDL. SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER:- --------------- DIVINE SUPER SHOPPE (PVT.) LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOHN PALIAKKARA, PALIAKKARA HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, KURIACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR. JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT: --------------- C.D.JOSE, S/O.LATE CHIRAMMEL KUNJAVOO DEVASSY, CHIRAMMEL KUNJAVOO HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 3006 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, is the defendant in O.S. No.687 of 2005 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 217 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. The first of the aforesaid suits is one filed by the respondent herein seeking a mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to vacate from the Supermarket in question on the premise that the arrangement under which the petitioner is holding the building is a licence. O.S. No. 217 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner against the respondent herein seeking a perpetual injunction restraining him from forcibly evicting the petitioner from the commercial premises on the contention that the transaction is a lease and not a licence. O.S. No. 217 of 2008 was initially filed before the Munsiff's Court and was got transferred to the Sub Court for joint trial and both the aforesaid suits stand W.P.(C) No. 3006 of 2010 : 2 : posted for trial on 30.01.2010 i.e. tomorrow. In the meanwhile, the respondent had filed a yet another suit as O.S. No. 1066 of 2009 before the II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur seeking damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day. According to the petitioner, since common issue arises in all the 3 suits, he moved the District Court for a transfer of that suit (O.S No. 1066 of 2009) also to the Principal Sub Court to be jointly tried along with the two suits referred to above and the District Court has dismissed the application for transfer and the petitioner is desirous of challenging the said order. He, therefore, prays for a mandamus to the District Court to issue a copy of the order in T.O.P. No. 482 of 2009. He also prays for a direction to adjourn the trial of the two suits which stands posted for trial tomorrow. 2. I am not inclined to adjourn the trial of the two suits merely because in the third suit which was requested to be transferred to the Principal Sub Court the same question as W.P.(C) No. 3006 of 2010 : 3 : to whether the transaction is a lease or licence, arises for consideration. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the District Court to issue certified copy of the order passed in T.O.P. No. 482 of 2009 expeditiously in case an application for the same has been filed. Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 3006 of 2010 : 4 :