IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5627 of 2008(T) ------------------------- [O.S.NO.386/06 & 387 OF 2006 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR) PETITIONER: ------------ A.N.VIJAYARAJAN,AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, MOONUUPARAYIL VEEDU ALIMUKKU, VETTITHITTA P.O.,PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M.M.RAJAPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, MANGALASERI VEEDU, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJMOHAN,AGED 41 YEARS,S/O. M.S.RAJAN MOHANAVILASAM HOUSE, ALIMUKKU P.O., PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5627 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 13.12.2004 PRODUCED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN O.S. NO.386 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 26.12.2005 PRODUCED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ACCOMPANYING BY AFFIDAVIT NUMBERED AS I.A. NO.190/2008 DATED 18.1.2008 ON THE FILE OF MUNISFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION TO I.A.190/2008 DATED NIL ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.E. I.A. NO.191/2008 DATED NIL ON THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 31.1.2008 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.192/2008 DATED NIL EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDE DATED 08.02.2008 IN I.A. NO.190/2008 IN O.S. NO.386/2006 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2008 IN I.A. NO.191/2008 IN O.S. NO.386/2006 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5627 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to set aside Exts.P8 & P9 orders of the Munsiff, Punalur. Ext.P8 is an order passed in an application for sending the document for expert comparison. Ext.P9 is an order passed in an application whereby the prayer to try OS 386 & 387 of 2007 jointly, has been repelled. 2. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as for the respondents. The two suits are filed by the plaintiff on two independent causes of action based on two promissory notes. One is of the year 2004 and the other of 2005. The only common factor is that one of the defendants figure as defendants in both the suits. The cause of action is different, the document relied on is different and the transaction is totally independent. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit before me that it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff was conducting a chitty business formerly and at that time he had obtained blank signed papers and should have fabricated the documents on those documents and had instituted the suit and therefore, a joint trial is necessary. It is for the plaintiff to establish his case on two independent causes of action WPC NO 5627/08 2 based on totally different documents, alleged to have been executed, at different points of time. Therefore there is no question of common evidence being tendered by the plaintiff in the case. Joint trial is ordinarily allowed in cases where the matters can be disposed of by a common judgment wherein the principle point to be decided is one and the same. But, here the principle point is different in both cases except for a general defence. Therefore, I do not find any ground to entertain an application for joint trial and therefore confirm the order of the learned Munsiff. 4. So far as Ext.P8 is concerned, I do not want to deal with it elaborately for the reason that the court itself has reserved the right of the defendants to be considered at a later stage, if circumstances so warrants. Therefore, I do not want to go into the merits therein but direct that court to consider it, as ordered by it. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 5627/08 3 WPC NO 5627/08 4