IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 32433 of 2008(J) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1492/2008 IN OS.183/2007 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER : --------------------- RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. NANGU AMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, KIZHAKKEDATHUPUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, IRAPURAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT : ------------------------ JOSEPH, S/O. VARKEY, AGED 65 YEARS, KAYYANICKAL HOUSE, IRAPURAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 32433 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.323 of 2007 of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. In that suit, petitioner prayed for declaration and injunction. Respondent filed O.S. No.183 of 2007 in the Sub Court, Perumbavoor for declaration and injunction. There, the allegation is that the unilateral cancellation of the document executed in favour of the respondent is invalid. Petitioner filed Transfer P.C. No.240 of 2007 in this court for transfer of O.S. No.323 of 2007 to the Sub Court, perumbavoor for joint trial. That petition was dismissed since O.S. No.323 of 2007 had already reached finality. Petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Division Bench. As per Exhibit P1, judgment dated 8-08-2008 Division Bench declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and at the same time observed that “if the very same issue had already arisen for W.P(c) No. 32433/2008 2 consideration before the Sub Court, no prejudice will be caused to the appellant to adduce evidence on the relevant issue before a higher court. There is no reason for interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.” Observing so, appeal was dismissed. Later, petitioner obtained amendment of the plaint in O.S. No.323 of 2007 and on account of pecuniary jurisdiction, plaint was returned for presentation in the proper court. Accordingly that plaint was presented in the Sub Court, Perumbavoor where it was renumbered as O.S. No.162 of 2008. Petitioner filed I.A. No.1492 of 2008 in that case for joint trial with O.S. No.183 of 2007. That application was dismissed vide Exhibit P3 order dated 1-11-2008. It is that order which is under challenge in this proceeding. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that since the issue involved in both the suits are one and same, joint trial is necessary. It is also contended by learned counsel at any rate, simultaneous disposal of the suit is required. 4. Petitioner had requested for transfer of the case while it was pending in the Munsiff's Court, to the Sub Court, perumbavoor to W.P(c) No. 32433/2008 3 facilitate joint trial. That request was rejected by this court as confirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, petitioner cannot again request for joint trial. Moreover, Division Bench had observed that petitioner could adduce evidence in support of the contentions raised by him in O.S. No.183 of 2007 pending before the Sub Court, Perumbavoor. Now the situation is that the trial of that suit is over and the matter is posted for hearing on 4-11-2008. In the above situation I am not persuaded to entertain the request for joint trial. No question of any simultaneous disposal as suggested by the learned counsel also arise. I do not find anything illegal or irregular, particularly in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench referred above, in the decision of the learned Sub Judge refusing joint trial. This writ petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm