IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 545 of 2010(O) ------------------------ IA NO.1041/2010 IN OS.288/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. N.P.PADMANABHAN NAIR,S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,NELLITHANATH HOUSE,ITHITHANAM MURI, KURICHY VILALGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. P.K.SANTHAKUMARIAMMA, W/O.N.P.PADMANABHAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,NELLITHANATH HOUSE,ITHITHANA M MURI, KURICHY VILALGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAKESH KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR,MULLASSERIL HOUSE, ITHITHANAM MURI, KURICHY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERY TALUK, PIN -686101. 2. RAJEEV.R., S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,THEKKEKKOVIL HOUSE, ITHITHANAM MURI, KURICHY VILLAGE,' CHANGANACHERY TALUK, PIN -686101 3. KRISHNAN KUTTY, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, KUNNAMPURATH HOUSE, ITHITHANAM MURI, KURUCHY VILLAGE,' CHANGANACHERY TALUK, PIN -686101 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.545 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT This petition is in challenge of Ext.P11, order directing joint trial of O.S.No.288 of 2009, 293 of 2009 and 302 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Changanacherry. Parties in all the suits are not exactly the same but, there are parties common in atleast two suits. There is another suit, O.S.No.120 of 2010 but, directed against the Government and its officials. Respondents filed Ext.P9, application in O.S.No.288 of 2009 for joint trial of all the four cases and when the application came up for hearing respondents stated that O.S.No.120 of 2010 could be delinked from the cases to be tried jointly, that prayer was allowed and accordingly O.S.No.120 of 2010 was delinked. In respect of other three suits learned Munsiff was ordered joint trial. Order of joint trial is under challenge by petitioners who are the defendants in O.S.No.302 of 2009. According to the learned counsel, there is no reason to order joint trial of the three suits. 2. I have gone through the plaint in all the three suits and it is seen that several items of properties are scheduled in the plaints. It is revealed from the plaints and the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that the core issue in these suits now ordered to be tried jointly is regarding width of a pathway over which the contestants claimed right as well as user. In OP(C) No.545/2010 2 otherwords, there is a common question of fact involved in these suits as to the width of the disputed pathway. To order a joint trial it is not necessary that the entire subject matter and the parties in all the suits must be the same and all the issues must be identical. The Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad (2007 (1) KLT 910) has stated that if it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in various suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits it is within the power of court to consolidate the suits and dispose of the same jointly. I stated that a common question of fact is involved in all the suits - regarding width of the disputed pathway. Having regard to the nature of contentions raised by parties and also considering that common question of fact I am satisfied that it was also desirable that all the suits are tried and disposed of jointly so that, divergent finding on the common question of fact could be avoided. Learned Munsiff is therefore correct in directing joint trial of the three suits. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks