Narayanan Nair vs Joy Joseph on 22 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21924 of 2008(I)


1. NARAYANAN NAIR, LAKSHMI SADANAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOY JOSEPH, KAROTHU HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :22/07/2008

 O R D E R
                      M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

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

                        W.P.(C) No.21924 of 2008

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

                       Dated this the 22nd July, 2008.

                              J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India challenging Ext.P6 order passed by Munsiff, Muvattupuzha, in

I.A.No.1814 of 2008 in O.S.No.176 of 2008, dismissing the prayer for

joint trial of the suit with O.S.No.5 of 2008. O.S.No.176 of 2008 was

filed by the petitioner seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory

injunction in respect of the plaint A schedule property therein.

O.S.No.5 of 2008 is filed by the respondent for a permanent

prohibitory injunction restraining petitioner from altering the nature of

the plaint C schedule property.

2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for

petitioner is that plaint B schedule property in O.S.No.176/2008 is the

plaint C schedule property in O.S.No.5 of 2008 and actual dispute is

with regard to the said way and in such circumstances learned Munsiff

should have tried both the suits together.

W.P.(C) No.21924/2008

2

3. On hearing the learned counsel and on going

through Ext.P6 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity

warranting interference in the exercise of the powers under Article

227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has no right to contend

that his suit should be tried jointly with the suit filed by the

respondent. Learned Munsiff for valid reasons found that the two suits

are not to be tried jointly. The learned counsel however submitted

that if joint trial is not ordered, there is a chance for conflicting

decisions. That possibility could be ruled out if the same Munsiff is to

try both the suits, though not jointly. In such circumstances, the

petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

nj.