IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 6089 of 2010(O) OP(TRANSFER) NO.100/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM OS.31/2008 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ETTUMANOOR. PETITIONER: --------------- NANCY ROSE JOSEPH,D/O.LATE P.J.JOSEPH, AGED 22 YEARS,RESIDING AT PAZHAYAMPALLIL HOUSE, MANNANAM KARA,ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT: --------------- JOSE JACOB,S/O.JACOB,JOSEPH ,AGED 54 YEARS RESIDING AT PAZHAYAMPALLIL HOUSE,MANNANAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM TALUK. ADV. SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA SRI.RACHEL JOSEPH SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2007. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE T.P.(OP) NO.100 OF 2009 ON THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1540 OF 2009 IN EXT.P2. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P2. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2009 IN EXT.P2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 6089 OF 2010 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order dated 22.12.2009 in O.P.(Transfer) No.100 of 2009, by which, the application for transfer of O.S.No.31 of 2008 from the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor to the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, where O.S.No.194 of 2009 is pending, was allowed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she entered into a contract with the respondent for construction of a house for the petitioner. The construction was not completed. Disputes arose between the parties. The petitioner wanted to complete the construction of her house. According to the petitioner, she was prevented by the respondent from doing so. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor, for an injunction restraining the respondent from entering into the plaint schedule property or from obstructing the petitioner from completing the construction. W.P.(C) NO.6089 OF 2010 O :: 2 :: 3. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.194 of 2009 before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam against the respondent for realization of the amount, which, according to the petitioner, was in excess of the work already done by the respondent. That suit is pending before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. 4. The respondent filed O.P.(Transfer) No.100 of 2009 before the District Court, Kottayam for transfer of O.S.No.31 of 2008 to the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. That Original Petition for transfer was allowed by Ext.P5 order dated 22.12.2009, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S.No.31 of 2008 was listed for trial and on 14.9.2009, the evidence on the side of the petitioner was over. The suit was posted to 17.9.2009. On the previous date, namely, on 16.9.2009 the O.P.(Transfer) was filed and stay was obtained. It is submitted that if O.S.No.31 of 2008 is transferred to the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, it would cause delay in the disposal of the suit. W.P.(C) NO.6089 OF 2010 O :: 3 :: 6. The learned District Judge held that the questions involved in both the suits are similar and, to some extent, the same, and the witnesses to be examined are also the same. The parties in both the cases are also the same. It was also noted that if the two cases are tried by two different courts, there will be a likelihood of conflicting decisions being rendered. The learned District Judge thought that to suit the convenience of the parties and to avoid rendering of conflicting decisions, it would be ideal if both the cases are tried by the same Court. O.S.No.31 of 2008, being the suit filed before the Munsiff's Court, transfer of that suit to the Sub Court alone is possible. The learned District Judge allowed the O.P.(Transfer) in such circumstances. The fact that trial had commenced in O.S.No.31 of 2008 was also taken into account by the learned District Judge. 7. The order passed by the court below is legal, proper and just. No interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both W.P.(C) NO.6089 OF 2010 O :: 4 :: the suits are of the years 2008 and 2009 and, therefore, the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam may be directed to dispose of the suits expeditiously. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection for the suits being disposed of expeditiously. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam to dispose of O.S.No.194 of 2009 and O.S.No.31 of 2008, Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor, which was renumbered as O.S.No.59 of 2010 before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, as expeditiously as possible. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/