IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8738 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.108/2003 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, NAMBATH MANA, OTHALUR DESOM, ANGADI AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. PRESIDENT, NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. GENERAL SECRETARY, NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.8738 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 24th day of March,2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the first plaintiff in O.S.108/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Ottappalam. Respondents are the defendants. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Sub Judge, Ottapalam allowing joint trial of O.S.108/2003 with O.S.18/2004. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that inspite of the objection raised by the plaintiffs, learned Sub Judge allowed the application for joint trial without considering the objection and it is not a speaking order and therefore the order is to be set aside. It was argued that the plaintiffs in O.S.108/2003 are not parties to O.S.18/2004 and the plaint schedule properties in both the suits are W.P(C) 8738/2009 2 different and in such circumstance, learned Sub Judge should not have directed a joint trial. 2. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the order of the learned Sub Judge, I find no reason to interfere with the order. The order itself shows that plaintiffs in both the suits are different. So also the plaint schedule properties are also different. But from Ext.P1 the copy of the plaint in O.S.108/2003 and Ext.P2 the copy of the plaint in O.S.18/2004, it is clear that as rightly found by the learned Sub Judge the main questions to be decided in both the suits is one and the same. What is contended by the plaintiffs in O.S.108/2003 is that plaint schedule property belonging to their Illom was obtained by a Committee for the purpose of construction of a College and the property was given with specific stipulation that if the College is not formed, it is to be returned back to the Illom of the plaintiffs and though the property was transferred W.P(C) 8738/2009 3 to the respondents by the said Committee, no College was formed and therefore on the strength of title, plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the same. In O.S.18/2004 the case of the plaintiff is similar. In such circumstance to avoid duplication of recording of evidence and for convenience, learned Sub Judge directed joint trial of both the suits. I find that no prejudice will be caused by a joint trial. Writ Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006