IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 1101 of 2011(O) ------------------------- I.A.NO.3202/2010 IN OS.410/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER/DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.410/2004 AND PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.177/2009: --------------------------------------------------------------------- S.SOMAN, S/O.SUBRAMONIAN ACHARI, PUNATHIL HOUSE, 43/239A, NEHRU ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM, FROM SURESH BHAVAN, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.410/2004 AND DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.177/09: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HARIHARAN ACHARI, S/O.SUBRAMONIAN ACHARI, RAJA BUILDING, MAMOM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE, KIZHUVILAM P.O., ATTINGAL-695 104. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.1101/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION BEARING NO.O4AA991521 OF AUTOSPARES. P2: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO SHOW THE NATURE OF PATHWAY TO THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 17/03/1995 BY THE 7TH PARTY IN EXT.P1CERTIFICATE TO THE RESPONDENT. P3A: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE OF RECEIPT OF EXT.P3 BY RESPONDENT. P4 SERIES: ASSESSMENT ORDER, TRADING PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT AND STATUTORY FORM 21CC FILED BY RESPONDENT AS MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S.AUTOSPARES FOR THE YEAR 1993-94 TO 1998-99. P5: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.410/2004 FILED BY RESPONDENT AS PLAINTIFF IN THE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL. P6: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PETITIONER AS DEFENDANT. P7: COPY OF REFER REPORT FILED BY ATTINGAL POLICE STATION BEFORE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ATTINGAL. P8: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DTD. 11/12/2008 FILED BY RESPONDENT HEREIN AS PLAINTIFF IN O.S.410/2004. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.G.OF REGISTRATION DTD. 7/02/2006 DIRECTING TO WRITE FOOT NOTE TO THE SUB REGISTRAR ATTINGAL. P10: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.177/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS PLAINTIFF IN THE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL. P11: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS IN O.S.177/2009. P12: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.S.177/2009. P13: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.3202/10 IN O.S.410/2004 SEEKING JOINT TRIAL WITH O.S.177/2009. P14: COPY OF OBJECTION TO EXT.P13. P15: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 4/01/2011 IN I.A.3202/10 IN O.S.410/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1101 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT 1st respondent has appeared through counsel. Respondents 2 and 3 appear through learned Government Pleader. 2. Ext.P15, order whereby learned Munsiff, Attingal refused to have a joint trial of O.S.Nos.410 of 2004 and 177 of 2009 is under challenge in this proceeding. 3. O.S.No.410 of 2004 is for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespass into the suit property exceeding a space having width of 9 links and causing obstruction to the plaintiff in O.S.No.410 of 2004 constructing boundary wall (leaving the said 9 links wide space). According to the petitioner who is the defendant in O.S.No.410 of 2004, the width of the way is 19 links as per sale deed No.433 of 1979 executed in his favour by his father. Respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.410 of 2004 obtained Ext.P9, order from the Registration Authorities to the effect that petitioner manipulated records of the registration department by OP(C)No.1101/2011 2 correcting 9 links as 19 links in the relevant records. Petitioner (defendant in O.S.No.410 of 2004) has filed O.S.No.177 of 2009 to declare Ext.P9, order null and void. 4. Learned Munsiff has disallowed the prayer for joint trial on the ground that the subject matter of the suits are different and that parties in both the suits are not same. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that in view of the dispute that arises for decision in the two suits, the same ought to be tried jointly. Learned counsel for 1st respondent contended that there is no reason or occasion for a joint trial. 6. The Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad (2007(1) KLT 910), in paragraph 16 has stated the circumstances under which the court could order a joint trial. It is stated that the main purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact OP(C)No.1101/2011 3 arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. 7. In O.S.No.410 of 2004 the question arises for decision whether width of the way is 9 links or 19 links. The question also arises whether Ext.P9, order issued by the Registering Authority that petitioner manipulated records of the registration department to correct width of the way from 9 links to 19 links is correct or not. In O.S.No.177 of 2009, the prayer is to set aside Ext.P9 as null and void. Thus a common question is involved in both the cases as to width of the disputed way and whether it was manipulated in the records of the registration department. In that view of the matter it is appropriate that both the suits are tried and disposed of jointly. A complete identity of parties is not required to order a joint trial. Viewed in that line I am inclined to think that learned Munsiff was not correct in passing Ext.P15, order disallowing the prayer made in I.A.No.3202 of 2010. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P15, order is set aside and I.A.No.3202 of 2010 in O.S.No.410 of 2004 of the court of learned Munsiff, Attingal will stand allowed. There shall be a joint trial and disposal of O.S.No.410 of 2004 and 177 of 2009. Learned Munsiff shall decide in which case evidence is to be recorded. I make it clear that this order is without OP(C)No.1101/2011 4 prejudice to the contentions that the parties have raised in the respective suits. Parties may request the learned Munsiff to expedite trial and disposal of the suits. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks