IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8724 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 25/2010 IN OS.265/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- E.K.SOMARAJAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, EROLICKAL VEETTIL, MADANTHAMON, KARIKULAM MURI, AATHIKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. E.J.KOSHY, AGED 60, S/O.YOHANNAN, EERIPPAKKALPEKAVUNGAL, MADANTHAMAN, AATHIKAYAM VILLAGE. 2. JOHN JOHN, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN, EERIPPAKKALPEKAVUNGAL, MADANTHAMAN, AATHIKAYAM VILLAGE. 3. MATHEW E.JOHN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN, EERIPPAKKALPEKAVUNGAL, MADANTHAMAN, AATHIKAYAM VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.8724 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 16th March 2010 Judgment The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for a direction to the Munsiff's Court, Ranni to issue a copy of the order in IA No.191/10 in OS No.265/09 pending before the said Court. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS Nos.265/09 and 25/10 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Ranni. The second respondent herein is the defendant in OS No.265//09 and all the respondents herein are the defendants in OS No.25/10. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed OS No.260/05 against the petitioner and his wife. 3. On the southern side of the plaint schedule property, there is a Panchayat Road. For ingress and egress into the property of the petitioner, there is a road through the property starting from the Panchayat Road. According to the petitioner, it is purely a private road. The WPC 8724/10 2 respondents are residing on the northern side of the petitioner's property. The petitioner submits, the respondents are making attempts to demolish the southern and northern gates of the property belonging to the petitioner, so that the road could be extended upto the property of the respondents. This resulted in the filing of the suits by the petitioner and the subsequent filing of the suit by respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner and his wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the subject matter in all the suits are one and the same and the issues raised are identical. So, the petitioner filed IA No.191/10 in OS No.265/09, seeking to have joint trial of the above suits. But, the said IA was dismissed by the Court below. Though the petitioner applied for a copy of that order, so far, it has not been issued to him. He submits, a copy of the order is necessary so as to take further steps in the matter. Therefore, he prays that there may be a direction to the Court below to issue a copy of the order in IA No.191/10 in OS No.265/09 to him forthwith. WPC 8724/10 3 4. In the light of the order that is proposed to be passed in this Petition, it is felt that notice is unnecessary to the respondents. It is pointed out that the decision on each suit will have a bearing on the other suits and therefore, joint trial of the suits is desirable. Whatever that be, an order has been passed by the Court below and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he may take such steps as are available to him in law. For the said purpose, he has to get a copy of the order passed on his application. There is no reason as to why the Court below is not issuing a copy of the order passed by it. In the result, there will be a direction to the Munsiff's Court, Ranni to issue a certified copy of the order in IA No.191/10 to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Till such time, the suits shall not be listed for trial. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE WPC 8724/10 4 sta WPC 8724/10 5