IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20311 of 2008(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2268/07 IN OS.196/2002 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.K.THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.P.K.KOCHAPPAN, BATHL NIVAS, MANISSERY DESOM, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SREEDHARAN, S/O.KOMAN, PAPPANGATTIL HOUSE, KOONATHARA AMSOM, PANAYUR DESOM, OTTAPPALAM. 2. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.YUSAF HAJI, PADIYATH, PAAVUKKONAM DESOM, IDAKKOD, KOTHAKKURISSI TALUK, OTTAPPALAM REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PRABJAKARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MALANTHENKKOTTIL HOUSE, PANAYOOR,KOONATHARA, OTTAPPALAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20311 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed challenging the order passed by learned Sub Judge, Ottappalam, in I.A.No.2268 of 2007 dismissing the application filed for joint trial. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.196 of 2002 and O.S.No.4 of 2003. O.S.No.196 of 2002 is instituted by the first respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale allegedly executed by the petitioner and first respondent on 27.9.2001. O.S.No.4 of 2003 was filed by second respondent before the same court for specific performance of an agreement dated 26.9.2000. Though the property is the same in both the suits, and defendant-petitioner the same, plaintiffs are different. So also, agreements based on which performance were sought are also different. It is in such circumstances, learned Sub Judge refused to order joint trial. 2. The argument of the learned counsel is that unless the suits are jointly tried, there is a chance for conflicting decisions in W.P.(C) No.20311 of 2008 2 the suits. When the suit is tried by the same court, I do not find, there is any chance for such conflicting decision. Moreover plaintiffs are different and the agreements for sale in the two suits are different, the suits cannot be tried jointly. There is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.