IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 12142 of 2007(U) -------------------------- OS.783/1998 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. E.O.LAWRENCE, SON OF EDAKALATHUR OUSEPH, POONKUNNAM DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. THANKOM LAWRENCE, W/O.E.O.LAWRENCE, DO. DO. DO. 3. ANNAMMA OUSEPH, W/O.EDAKALATHUR OUSEPH, DO. DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAKTHAN KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD., THRISSUR, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. LEMIN TRADERS, OLARI DESOM, PULLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER E.O.LAWRENCE SON OF EDAKALATHUR OUSEPH, POONKUNNAM DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. ELSY JOSE, D/O.ANNAMMA OUSEPH, POONKUNNAM DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. MARY PAUL, D/O.ANNAMMA OUSEPH, DO. DO. DO. WPC.NO.12142/07 5. LILLY VARGHESE, D/O.ANNAMMA OUSEPH, DO. DO. DO. 6. FLORY XAVIOUR, D/O.ANNAMMA OUSEPH, DO. DO. DO. 7. REGAN, SON OF PELLISSERY GEORGE, AMMADAM DESOM, PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 8. LENIL TRADERS, NEHRU BAZAR, THRISSUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER E.O.LAWRENCE, SON OF EDAKALATHUR OUSEPH, PONKUNNAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R3-6 SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R2 & 8 SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.12142/07 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.783/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.722/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.742/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.751/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.753/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.761/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.763/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.773/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.793/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.882/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.383/98 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.935/99 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.331/03 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.332/03 PREFERRED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN I.A.NO.6059/06 IN O.S.NO. 783/98 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THRISSUR WPC.NO.12142/07 EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED TO I.A.NO.6059/06 IN O.S.NO.783/98 EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.6059 OF 2006 IN O.S.NO. 783 OF 1998 DATED 18-1-07 /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 12142 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January , 2009 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 is Ext.P17 order by which the Sub Court, Thrissur ordering joint trial of 14 suits including O.S.No. 331/2003 and O.S.No.332/2003. All the suits except O.S.No. 331/2003 and O.S.No.332/2003 were filed by the respondent as plaintiff for recovery of amounts on account of chitty transactions. O.S.No. 331/2003 and O.S.No.332/2003 were filed by the same proprietor of two different proprietary concerns under the name and style of Lelil Traders and Lelin Traders respectively against the respondent ( plaintiff in the other suits) 2. Despite resistance, learned Judge became inclined to allow the application only on the consideration of convenience of court and parties. Assailing Ext.P17, Sri.P.C.Chacko would refer to Order II Rule 3 and Order II Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel would draw my attention to the judgment of this court in Janardhanan Pillai v. Kochunarayani Amma ( 1976 KLT 279 (F.B.) WPC.No.12142/07 2 Learned counsel argued that if the impugned order is allowed to stand and joint trial is insisted upon, the same will be embarrassing to the petitioner and that the petitioner will be compelled to prefer appeals against all the cases in the event of a common issue being decided against the petitioner in one of the cases. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order. According to him, it is mainly on consideration of convenience of court and parties that the impugned order has been passed. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 331/2003 and O.S.No.332/2003 is one and the same and they were subscribers in the Kuri conducted by the plaintiffs in the other suits. 4. I am not prepared to agree that complete identity of parties and cause of action is necessary for ordering joint trial of suits. Partial identity of parties and causes of action may be sufficient justification for ordering joint trial. The paramount consideration is convenience of the courts and litigants in having a joint trial considering the nature of the evidence to be adduced. In the instant case I notice that the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the nature of evidence to be adduced WPC.No.12142/07 3 by the parties is common and that it will be most convenient to have a joint trial. Thus I do not find any infirmity in the learned Subordinate Judge having ordered joint trial of all the cases other than O.S.No. 331/2003 and O.S.No.332/2003. Coming to O.S.No. 331/2003 and O.S.No.332/2003, I do notice some merit in the submission of Sri.P.C.Chacko. All the same, I am of the view that those two suits must be simultaneously tried and decided by a separate common judgment. Thus interfering with Ext.P17 to the limited extent of directing that O.S.No. 331/2003 and O.S.No.332/2003 will be tried separately, but simultaneously with the other 12 cases, this writ petition is disposed of. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.12142/07 4