M.Ponnamma vs Yohannan on 10 July, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 7512 of 2005(T)


1. M.PONNAMMA, W/O.E.V.JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. YOHANNAN, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 55 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :10/07/2007

 O R D E R


                             PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.

                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                            W.P.(C) No.7512 of 2005

                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                               Dated: 10th July, 2007


                                     JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 order by which the learned Munsiff dismissed an

application for stay under Section 10 of the C.P.C. filed by the

petitioner who is the plaintiff in the earlier instituted suit

O.S.No.265/03 is under challenge in this Writ Petition under Article

227 of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the persuasive and fervent

submissions of Mr.V.Rajendran Perumbavoor, learned counsel for the

petitioner, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel who argues

that Ext.P5 is vitiated to the extent of justifying interference under

the supervisory jurisdiction. At the same time I feel that

considerations of justice and the consideration that possibility of

conflicting findings in respect of litigations pertaining to substantially

the same property should be avoided as far as possible and that the

valuable time of the court should be saved, I am of the view that

there is justification for ordering a joint trial of both the suits.

Accordingly, even as I approve Ext.P5 order, I direct the learned

Munsiff to try and dispose of O.S.No.265/03 and O.S.No.296/03

jointly treating O.S.No.265/03, the earlier instituted suit as the

leading suit. Since both the suits are of the year 2003, the learned

W.P.C.No.7512/05 – 2 –

Munsiff will make every endeavour to dispose of the suits within three

months of them becoming ripe for trial. Mr.Rajendran has a further

grievance that the learned Munsiff has not been inclined to direct

maintenance of status quo as reported by the Advocate

Commissioner who was appointed in O.S.No.265/03 which is the suit

earlier in point of time. If any application is filed by either of the

parties regarding the above aspect, the learned Munsiff shall consider

the application and take a decision after hearing both sides and issue

appropriate interim directions.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

srd                                                     PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE