IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 1897 of 2009(A) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2416/08 IN OS.63/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD OS.189/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR (55/2003) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VADAKKENCHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SWAMINATHAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, PUZHAKKAL PARAMBA, MANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, ALTHUR TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.BINOY VASUDEVAN, MR.R.MANIKANTAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. LAKSHMI AMMAL, D/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, CHERUMKOTTIL, VANDAZHI AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. CHAMIYAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, CHERUMKOTTIL, VANDAZHI AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.MR.JEFRIN MANUEL R2 BY ADV.MR.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1897/2009 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DTD.30/03/2007 IN OS.NOS.189/04, 55/2003 AND 123/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR. P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.63/05 OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. P3: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.63/2005. P4: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2416/08 IN O.S.NO.63/05 OF SUB COURT,PALAKKAD. P5: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.NO.2416/08 IN O.S.NO.63/05. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/08/2008 IN I.A.NO.2416/08 INO.S.NO.63/05 OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1897 of 2009 - A --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To set aside the order passed by the Sub Court, Palakkad in I.A.No.2416/2008 in O.S.No.63/2005 and further to allow the same.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.63 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. The above suit is one for damages and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. Petitioner applied for stay of the trial of the above suit under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure contending that appeals preferred by him against the common judgment passed in three suits under Ext.P1 judgment, the issues of which directly and substantially connected with the present suit, is still pending before the appellate court. The application was opposed to by the respondents/defendants in the suit. The learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the application vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.1897 of 2009 - A 2 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. I find by Ext.P1 judgment, three suits, one suit for partition and the other two for damages, and for injunction, all in respect of the very same property covered by the present suit were disposed by the court below after trial. O.S.No.189 of 2004 among the three suits was one for partition and O.S.No.55 of 2003 and O.S.No.123 of 2005, both filed by the present petitioner, were for damages and for injunction. Suit for partition was decreed by passing a preliminary decree and other suits filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Ext.P1 common judgment. Admittedly, petitioner has preferred three appeals in respect of the adverse decision rendered against him in the respective suits. At the time when the present suit came up in the special list for trial, petitioner applied for stay of the suit under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure canvassing pendency of the appeals. It has to be noted that the present suit is numbered as O.S.No.63 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad, and at least one among the suits covered by Ext.P1 judgment was instituted by the petitioner at an earlier point of W.P.(C).No.1897 of 2009 - A 3 time. If the suits had identity the petitioner could have moved for transfer of the previous suits for trial with the present suit. That was not done. No attempt was also made to stay the proceedings till the present suit came up in the special list for trial. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Sub Judge holding that the suit is not liable to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-