IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18389 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.1320 OF 2009 IN OS.341/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.MOIDUPPA, S/O.PARAKKAL MOHAMMED, MARAYAMANGALAM AMSOM, MAVUNDISSERY DESOM, OTTAPALA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.SHEREEKATH, D/O.LATE KOYAKUTTY, MANNAN KULAMBIL HOUSE, ADIPERANAD, KAYARADI POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, MR.GEEN T.MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. A.K.BALKEES, W/O.A.NOORUDEEN, AYNAMPADAM AMSOM AND DESOM, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THANKAMANI, W/O.CHENTHAMARA, PULIYAMANGALAM, AYLOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. AMEEDHA @ HAMEEDHA, W/O.CHANTHU MOHAMMAD, MINUKKAMPARA, CHULLIAR DAM, MUTHALAMADA CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 18389 OF 2009 O ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “ (i) to issue a writ, direction or order to quash Ext.P12. (ii) to call for the records relating to Ext.P12. (iii) to direct the Munsiff Court, Chittur to consolidate and joint trial of Exts.P1 and P6 suits and dispose it according to law. (iv) to award costs of this writ petition.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.No.341/07 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chittur. Respondents 1 and 2 are the defendants in that suit. The 3rd respondent/ plaintiff has instituted another suit as OS No.377/07 and it is also pending before the very same court. Petitioner/ plaintiff moved an application in his suit OS.No.341/07, setting forth a case that the issues arising for adjudication, and also the defendants, in both suits are common though the plaintiffs are different. A further case was also advanced that it would be convenient for both the parties in the two suits as well as the court to have a joint trial to avoid WPC.18389/09 : 2 : conflicting decisions, loss of precious time of the court and inconvenience to the parties in leading evidence separately. The application moved by the plaintiff was objected by respondents 1 and 2, the defendants in the suit. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties in OS.No.341/07, the petitioner and the 1st and 2nd respondents, declined the request for joint trial, vide Ext.P12 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P12 order is impeached by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that in the nature of reliefs sought for notice to the respondents is not necessary, and it is dispensed with. It is submitted though the application is moved only in OS.No.341/07, the plaintiff in other suit OS.No.377/07 has been impleaded as the 3rd respondent in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the observations made by the learned Munsiff in Ext.P12 order expressing a view that it would be beneficial to have a joint trial if the parties agree for the same, but, it could not be granted since respondents 1 and 2, the defendants, WPC.18389/09 : 3 : are not agreeable for such trial. It is submitted that it is a fit case where joint trial of the two suits is essential to advance the ends of justice. I am afraid the learned Munsiff has not taken note of the governing principles applicable for ordering joint trial. It is not the sweet wish of a party but the concern of a court that should be given consideration in determining the question whether a joint trial of suits or proceedings is warranted. It will be appropriate and profitable to take note of the observations rendered in Janardhanan Pillai Vs. Kochunarayani Amma [1976 KLT 279 (FB)], wherein His Lordship Justice Poti, as his Lordship then was, has observed thus: “ There is no provision in the code of Civil Procedure for consolidating suits. Nevertheless courts order joint trial of two or more suits for the sake of convenience and, quite often, to avoid conflicting decisions. This is done by the court in the interest of justice in exercise of the inherent powers possessed by it. ............ Consolidation of two suits need not necessarily be by agreement of parties, for, if a court, after hearing parties, feels that in the interests of justice it is necessary that two or more proceedings should be tried together, it is open WPC.18389/09 : 4 : to it to order so to avoid repetition of the same evidence in the different cases or to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions in those cases or for such other justifying reasons.” 3. Ext.P12 order shows that the learned Munsiff was prima facie satisfied that joint trial of the two suits is necessary but it was not ordered as not agreed upon by the parties. That is not correct. Ext.P12 order is set aside directing the learned Munsiff to consider the question afresh and while doing so, notice shall be given to the plaintiff in OS.No.377/07 also, as a decision on the question of joint trial has to be taken after hearing the parties involved in both suits. Subject to the above directions, writ petition is closed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge