IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 703 of 2008(H) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5.11.2007 IN IA 6421/2007 IN OS.501/2005 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SOMAN,AGED 54 YEARS S/O. CHELLAN NADAR,RESIDING AT PANAVILAKODU THEKKARIKU VEEDU,KADAIKKULAM DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. 2. VALIYA MANIYAN, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR, THEKKUTHATHVEEDU DO...DO....... 3. DAMODHARAN,AGED 63 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR,RESIDING AT DO.....DO....... BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SRI.K.K.SUNIL KUMAR (IDUKKI) RESPONDENT: ------------- MADHU,S/O. KAMALASANAN NADAR RESIDING AT PANAVILAKODU ROADARIKATHU VEEDU KADAIKULAM DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.R.BINDU SMT.S.LETHIKA DEVI SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 703 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF the PLAINT IN O.S.911/04 EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 501/05 EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.3253/05 IN O.S.501/05 DATED 18.1.06 OF the ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, NEYYATTINKARA EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1088/06 IN O.S.501/05 DATED 22.8.06 EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.6421/07 IN O.S.501/05 DATED 5.11.07 EXT.P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.6514/07 IN O.S.501/05 DATED 17.11.07 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 703 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 is an order passed in an application filed by the petitioners for review of the order in IA 6421/07 in OS 501/05. The said petition is one for a stay of the proceeding in OS 501/05 under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that another case OS 911/04 is pending. The court below dismissed the application for stay under Section 10 of the CPC as well as the application for review. 2. I am informed that OS 911/04 was originally filed without the plaintiffs in OS 501/05 as parties and it is now admitted by both sides that they have been impleaded. OS 911/04 is for injunction and the other suit is for declaration and recovery as well. Issues in both the suits are relating to a pathway. But I am informed that OS 501/05 is in the list and it is a part heard matter where evidence of the plaintiff is over. In a case of this nature, it is desirable that the two cases are disposed of simultaneously so that WPC NO 703/08 2 atleast there will be a finality to both cases. Since the other matter had already begun and since it is a part heard matter, now ordering a joint trial may cause difficulty to the parties. Therefore, I feel the following directions can be given to the court below. (i) The court below is directed to try both cases independently but pronounce the judgment separately on the same date. (ii) For the said purpose the court may include the suit OS 911/04, if the steps are completed also in the list or direct the parties to complete the pre-trial steps, as expeditiously as possible, and then include in the list, conduct day to day trial and thereafter hear both cases and then dispose of the matter with separate judgments. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 703/08 3 WPC NO 703/08 4 WPC NO 703/08 5