IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1530 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- AS.135/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM OS.300/2007 of SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PADINJAREMURIYIL, KADAYANIKADU, VELLAVOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ BABU RAJENDRAN, PUTHENPURACKAL, ASHAVIHAR, TC/9/357 (1) F-14, JAVAHAR NAGAR, KAVADIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1530 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records relating to Ext.P7 and to set aside Ext.P7. ii) Allow Ext.P5 application and to stay the trial of O.S No.300/2007 and connected cases pending before the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam till the disposal of A.S No.135/2007 pending before the District Court, Kottayam. iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice, including costs. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.300 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Kottayam which is one for damages. That suit is tried along with three other suits in which identical relief is claimed against the common defendant, respondent herein. The plaintiffs in the above suits have purchased portions of properties from the common defendant, over which they claimed absolute title and possession. However, later, the plaintiffs realised that there was a suit for partition involving the property sold to them W.P.(C).No.1530 OF 2010 Page numbers and in the decree passed in that suit, it was held, the respondent/defendant has got only 1/8th right over the property. That was the basis for the suit claim for damages against the defendant. Petitioner/plaintiff moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of his suit canvassing a case that an appeal preferred against the decree passed in the suit for partition is pending for consideration before the appellate court. Till hearing and disposal of that appeal, he applied for stay of his suit. The learned Munsiff after hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances presented was not satisfied with the request for stay of trial of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was declined vide Ext.P7 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P7 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to W.P.(C).No.1530 OF 2010 Page numbers the respondent is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Perusing Ext.P7 order, I find, the learned Munsiff declined the request made by the plaintiff taking note that the issues involved in the appeal from the decree passed in the suit for partition and also in the suit filed by the present plaintiff are different and distinct, and in that view of the matter, it was held that trial of the suit cannot be stayed. I do not find any impropriety in the view taken by the learned Munsiff. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv