IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 10634 of 2008(N) -------------------------- OS.84/2000 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- K.V. GEORGE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. V.VARGHESE, KOTTARATHIL, KALATHIMURIYIL, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE, DOING BUSINESS AT BONY DRESSES, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENT: ------------------- VASUDEVAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 60, PROPRIETOR, M/S. PESTICIDE CORPORATION INDIA, GCDA SHOPPING CENTRE, BEHIND THOPPIL GARDEN, ROOM NO.6, FIRST FLOOR, JANATHA JUNCTION,VYTTILA, KOCHI-19. ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.10634/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.NO.84/2000 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/10/2001 IN TRANSFER ORIGINAL PETITIN NO.196/01 AND 197/01. EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.191/04. EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 27/1'/06 IN I.A.NO.191/04 AND I.A.NO.5770/05. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 10634 OF 2008 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.84/2000 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner. The suit has been filed by the petitioner for recovery of money. The suit is pending. The defendant in the suit filed Transfer O.P.Nos.196 & 197/2001 for transfer of O.S.Nos.716 & 812/1999 pending before the I Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam to the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam where O.S.No.84/2000 is pending. According to the applicant in the Transfer O.P. two suits pending before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam and O.S.No.84/2000 are connected suits, that for a proper appreciation of the contentions raised by the petitioners in all the three suits, it is said that it is highly necessary in the interest of justice that all the the suits are disposed of by the same court. In the circumstances, the defendant -2- WP(C).No.10634/2008 in O.S.No.84/2000 prayed for a direction to transfer O.S.Nos.716 & 812/1999 pending before the I Additional Munsiff's Court to the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. 2. The learned District Judge passed a common order on 20th October, 2001, produced as Ext.P3 on the following terms: The learned Judge observed in Ext.P3 that I have no hesitation to hold that considering the nature of contentions set up by the petitioners it will be advantageous and ideal, if the same judicial mind is applied to the facts in all the three cases. Such a course, if followed, I am satisfied will advance the interests of justice ideally. No prejudice is likely to result to anyone by issuing such a direction. The learned Judge allowed the transfer applications and ordered transfer of two suits to the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, where O.S.No.84/2000 is pending. On transfer two suits are re-numbered as O.S.Nos.685 & 686/2001. 3. Subsequently, the defendant filed I.A.No.4360/2003 for joint trial of the three suits. According to the defendant, the very purpose of transferring those two suits to the Sub Court, -3- WP(C).No.10634/2008 Ernakulam, where O.S.No.84/2000 is pending, was to have joint trial of those three suits. 4. The learned Judge accepted the fact that the dispute involved in all the three cases are based on a single transaction and therefore allowed I.A.No.4360/2003 and ordered that all the three suits have to be tried together in the interest of justice. The order in I.A.No.4360/2003 was passed on 21/10/2003, as the IA was not opposed by the present petitioner. 5. Subsequently, the writ petitioner filed I.A.Nos.191/2004 and 5770/2005 to review the order dated 21/10/2003 passed in I.A.No.4360/2003 and to condone the delay of 50 days in preferring I.A.No.191/2004 respectively. The learned Sub Judge considered the above-said I.As. on merits. For the reasons I have stated in detail in the preceding paragraphs, the court below held that no grounds are made out to review the order allowing joint trial in I.A.No.4360/2003. The court below also considered the delay petition on merits. IA.No.4360/2003 filed for joint trial was allowed on 21/10/2003. The petition for review was -4- WP(C).No.10634/2008 filed on 9/1/2004. The petition to condone the delay was filed not along with the petition for review; but subsequently on 19/11/2005. The petition to condone of delay is not supported by an affidavit of the party or his counsel. The affidavit was filed by the Advocate's Clerk. The court below on facts held that the reasons stated are not sufficient to condone the delay. Therefore, the learned Judge dismissed the delay petition and consequently, the petition for review was also dismissed. For the reasons I have stated in detail in the preceding paragraphs and for the reason that no objection was filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.4360/2003, I find that no valid grounds are made out by the petitioner to interfere with Ext.P6 order in the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.