IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 2186 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------------- (OS.NO. 178/2010 AND OS.NO. 223/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR) .................... PETITIONER ------------------- GEETHA P., AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE GOVINDAN,PANICKASSERY HOUSE, KAKKURISSI, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUMARAN, VIRUTHI HOUSE, KAKKURISSI, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 741. 2. VELAYUDHAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, ERANDATHARA HOUSE, KAKKURISSI, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 741. 3. VALSALA, D/O.LATE GOVINDAN, PANICKASSERY HOUSE, KAKKURISSI, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 741. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.2186/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT AS O.S.NO.223/2008 P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.223/2008 DATED 21/05/2008. P3 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.178/2010 DATED 6/02/2010. P4 COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1341/2011 IN OS NO.223/2008 DATED 30/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2186 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T All the respondents are served but there is no response. 2. Dismissal of Ext.P4, application (copy of the order is not produced) is under challenge. That is an application filed by the petitioner as first defendant in O.S. No.223 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kodungalloor for stay of further proceedings in the suit on account of pendency of O.S. No.178 of 2010 in the same court. 3. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has filed O.S. No.178 of 2010 before the learned Munsiff for fixation of boundary and other reliefs and it is with respect to the same property that first respondent has filed O.S. No.223 of 2008 against petitioner and her sister. In O.S. No.223 of 2008 the prayer is for a decree for prohibitory injunction against causing obstruction to the pathway. According to the petitioner, the pathway is not having that much width as claimed by the first O.P(C) No.2186 of 2011 -: 2 :- respondent in O.S. No.223 of 2008. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that fixation of boundary in O.S. No.178 of 2010 is with respect to the property over which first respondent has claimed right of access and hence petitioner filed Ext.P4, application for stay of trial O.S. No. 223 of 2008. 4. It is seen from Ext.P4 that the said application was filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am not inclined to think that it is necessary to order stay of O.S. No.223 of 2008 as prayed for in Ext.P4. If petitioner has a case that both suits concerned same property and the decision in one case is relevant/binding in the other, it is open to the petitioner to make a request to the learned Munsiff for joint trial of the two suits. 5. In view of the above I do not find reason to interfere with the dismissal of Ext.P4, application. But I make it clear that if circumstances warranted it is open to the petitioner to request learned Munsiff for joint trial of the suits and if any such request is made learned Munsiff shall consider whether there are common question of law and/or facts or other circumstance justifying joint trial of the suits. Petitioner is granted two weeks' time from O.P(C) No.2186 of 2011 -: 3 :- this day to move such application before the learned Munsiff. Original petition is disposed of with the above observations and direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv