IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19100 of 2010() ------------------------- OS.NOS.750/2007 AND 757/2007 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SELESTIN ALIAS SEBASTIAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.K.O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT KUNNAPPILLIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR SRI.SOJO J.KALLIDUKIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HOLY FAMILY CHURCH, SOUTH CHITTOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU VARUTHU, KOLARIKKAL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR. 2. ANTONY KOPPANDISSERY, VICAR OF HOLY FAMILY CHURCH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HOLY FAMILY CHURCH, SOUTH CHITTOOR. 3. ANTONY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O.XAVIER, RESIDING AT VELOLIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR. 4. SIMON, AGED ABOUT 46, S/O.CHOWERY, KUZHIVELIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, CHERANALLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 5. ROY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O.RAPPE, RESIDING AT KUMBANAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, CHERANALLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 6. JINSON, AGED ABOUT 31, S/O.JIMMY, MANAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, CHERANALLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 7. JOY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KUZHIVELIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, CHERANALLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19100 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT This petition is for joint trial of two suits - O.S.Nos.750 of 2007 and 757 of 2007 pending in the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Ernakulam. Both the suits are filed by petitioner along with plaintiff No.1 for injunction against forcible eviction and demolition of the building belonging to respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in both the cases. In O.S.No.750 of 2007 petitioner and plaintiff No.1 claimed that their predecessor-in-interest has been in possession of the suit property described therein for the last 70 years having trespassed into the said property in the year 1936 and thus, they have perfected title over the suit property. Respondents filed written statement in that suit contending that property belonged to it and that predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and plaintiff No.1 were permitted to occupy the building on the strength of a request made by him. They denied that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and plaintiff No.1 trespassed into the property in the year 1936 and perfected title by adverse possession. In O.S.No.757 of 2007 petitioner and plaintiff No.1 claimed that another item of property adjacent to the property involved in O.S.No.750 of 2007 has been in the possession of himself and predecessor-in-interest since last 57 years, husband of plaintiff No.1 having trespassed into that property in the year 1949, demolished the old house and constructed a new building. Respondents contended that property belonged to it and on the strength of a permission granted to petitioner/plaintiff No.2 he has been doing business in the suit WP(C) No.19100/2010 2 property. Petitioner wanted joint trial of O.S.Nos.750 of 2007 and 757 of 2007. Though no objection was filed by respondent, learned Munsiff was of the view that there is nothing in common for a joint trial. 2. No doubt, when some common question of fact or law is involved joint trial of the suits can be ordered. Here properties involved are different though it belonged to respondent No.1 and the nature of claim made by plaintiffs in both the suits are also different. In one case adverse possession is claimed from 1936 and in the other, from 1949 onwards. There is nothing in common in between the parties so far as the contention in both cases are concerned. Each case has to succeed or fall on the strength or weakness of that case. As there is no common question of fact or law involved notwithstanding that respondents have not preferred any objection I am persuaded to think that learned Munsiff was correct in disallowing joint trial. No direction for joint trial can be given for the mere sake of convenience of parties. If simultaneous disposal of the suits is necessary it will be open to the petitioner to make such a request before the learned Munsiff. With the above observation, Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks