IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 350 of 2010(O) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.9.2010 IN I.A.NO.7220/2010 IN OS 559/04 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR PETITIONERS: 1. SUNNY,S/O.ANTHONI,THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, KUZHAKKUMPATTUKARA,CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-680 020. 2. GRACY SUNNY,W/O.SUNNY,THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA,CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-680020. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: 1. P.P.GEORGE,S/O.PAULOSE,CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, FATHIMA NAGAR,PAVARATTI,CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-680020. 2. RAJAN,THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA,CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-680020. 3. MARY,@ OMANA,THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, KIZHUKKUMBATTUKARA DESOM,CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-680020. 4. RANI,THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, KIZHUKKUMBATTUKARA DESOM,CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-680020. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.117 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 22.1.2008. EXT.P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.117 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DT.5.7.2008. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.798/04 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DT.28.7.2004. EXT.P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.798/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 28.7.2004. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.559 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 14.6.2004. EXT.P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.559 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DT.20.11.2004. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.661/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 21.6.2004. EXT.P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.661/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 7.2.2005. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.7220/2010 IN O.S.NO.559/2004 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 22.10.2009. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.7220/10 IN O.S.NO.559/2004 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 24.9.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 350 OF 2010 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The Principal Sub Court, Thrissur passed an order for joint trial of O.S.Nos.559 of 2004, 661 of 2004, 798 of 2004 and 117 of 2008. Later, the plaintiff in O.S.No.117 of 2008 submitted before Court, on the date on which the suit was listed for trial, that the plaintiff in that suit did not get notice of the application for joint trial. That no such notice was given was admitted by the petitioners. Therefore, the court below reviewed the order passed earlier and passed the order dated 24.9.2010, holding that O.S.No.117 of 2008 should be separately tried. That order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. O.S.No.661 of 2004 is filed by Francis George, S/o.P.P.George for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. The suit was filed by P.P.George in his capacity as power of attorney holder of Francis George. The petitioners herein are the defendants in that suit. O.S.No.559 of 2004 was filed by P.P.George for return of the advance amount on the basis of an alleged O.P.(C) NO.350 OF 2010 :: 2 :: agreement for sale. The defendants are the first petitioner herein and his mother. Later, the mother of the first petitioner died and her legal representatives are the first petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 herein. O.S.No.798 of 2004 is filed by P.P.George against the first petitioner herein for return of the advance amount on the basis of an alleged agreement for sale. O.S.No.117 of 2008 was filed by P.P.George against the first petitioner herein for recovery of amount covered by a cheque. It is stated that an agreement for sale was entered into and an advance amount was given by P.P.George to Sunny, the first petitioner. When the amount was demanded back, Sunny issued a cheque. The cheque was dishonoured and therefore, O.S.No.117 of 2008 was filed for realization of that amount. 3. The contention raised by the petitioners herein in all the above four suits is that they borrowed money from Francis George, son of P.P.George. At the time when the amount was given, Francis George got several signed blank papers, cheques and promissory notes from the petitioners. The suits were filed by misusing some of those papers and instruments. This contention applies to O.S.No.117 of 2008 as well. O.P.(C) NO.350 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 4. The court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the cause of action in O.S.No.117 of 2008 is different and also on the ground that O.S.No.117 of 2008 was filed in 2008 whereas the other suits were filed in 2004. 5. From the facts stated above, it is clear that common contentions are raised in all the four suits, whether the suit is for recovery of money on the basis of an agreement or on the basis of a cheque or on the basis of a promissory note. The common defence in all the cases is that at the time when Francis George lent money to the defendants, several cheques, signed blank papers, promissory notes etc. were obtained from the defendants. In the nature of the contentions raised, it can be seen that the evidence to be adduced in all the cases is practically common. The parties are also substantially the same in all the cases. If separate trials are ordered, it would cause great inconvenience and prejudice to both parties. It is also likely that conflicting decisions may arise. Therefore, I am of the view that the order passed by the court below is liable to be interfered with. O.P.(C) NO.350 OF 2010 :: 4 :: Accordingly, the Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order dated 24.9.2010 is set aside. O.S.No.117 of 2008 shall also be tried along with O.S.Nos.559 of 2004, 661 of 2004 and 798 of 2004. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/