IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6686 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ AS.6/2007 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.406/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SASIKUMAR, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, SREEPADAM, CHERUVALLUR, PARAMCODE MURI, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, BY ADVS.MR.S.MOHANAN MR.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O. NEELAKANTAN PILLAI, BINDU NIVAS, CHERUVALLUR, UMMANNOOR MURI, UMMANNOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. R1 BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.6686/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 406/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. P2:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS. 406/04 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS. 353/04 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. P4:- COPY OF THE IA. 2273/07 IN OS. 406/04 ON THR FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. P5:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA. 2273/07 IN OS. 406/04 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 2273/07 IN OS. 406/04 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6686 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ordering to stay the further proceedings in O.S.No.406 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara till the disposal of A.S.No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakkara.” 2. Petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.406 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. Respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. Suit is one for declaration of title, possession and injunction. Petitioner with the other co- defendants in the suit filed an application for stay of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the issues arising for adjudication are involved in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, namely, in O.S.No.353 2004 which after trial had been dismissed but from which an appeal is now pending. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application for stay of the suit filed by the W.P.(C).No.6686 of 2009 - O 2 defendants. Ext.P6 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issues involved in the appeal arising from the decision of O.S.No.353 of 2004 and those covered by O.S.No.406 of 2004 are identical and parties are the same. So much so, stay of the suit under Section 10 Code of Civil Procedure as sought for required to be granted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.406 of 2004 submitted that schedule description of the two suits would show that they are entirely different and there is no identity at all. After hearing the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and also perusing the materials tendered with the petition, I am inclined to hold that though there are some similarities and identities in the issues to be considered Ext.P6 order passed by the court below is not liable to be interfered with as it is reported the case has been W.P.(C).No.6686 of 2009 - O 3 included in the special list for trial. In O.S.No.406 of 2004, the plaintiffs therein had sought for declaration of title over 15 cents of land, which even on the disputed facts presented is claimed by the plaintiffs in the earlier suit as part of 65 cents over which they sought for declaration of their title, there may be some similarity in the two suits. But the earlier suit had been disposed with the declaration sought for by the plaintiffs therein declined. An appeal, admittedly, pending against the decision in the previous suit. Only after the subsequent suit came up in the list, application for stay under Section 10 CPC was moved and the learned Munsiff was not inclined to allow that application at that stage. I find no impropriety or illegality in P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff. The writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-