IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19571 of 2009(O)
1. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR,S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANANDHA SUBRAMANNYA IYYER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :10/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.19571 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff in O.S.No.370 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional
Munsiff, Nedumangad has filed this Writ Petition challenging that part of order
dated 18.07.2007 on I.A.No.6069 of 2006 in the said suit to the extent learned
Munsiff has disallowed joint trial of O.S.No.198 of 2005 along with two other suits
referred to in the said order. According to the learned counsel for petitioner,
subject matter of the suits is one and same though there is no strict identity of
parties. It is the contention of learned counsel that plaintiff in O.S.No.198 of
2005 which was not allowed to be tried jointly with other two suits is defendant
in O.S.No.370 of 2005 and plaintiff in O.S.No.686 of 2005. According to the
learned counsel defendant No.1 in O.S.No.198 of 2005 is the plaintiff in
O.S.No.370 of 2005. It is the contention of the learned counsel that it was
merely for the reason of the parties being different that joint trial of O.S.No.198
of 2005 along with the two other suits was not allowed. Learned counsel for
respondents contended that impugned order was passed on 18.07.2007 and the
Writ Petition is filed at the fag end of the proceedings when the case was
included in the list for trial in the year 2009.
2. It is not as if for the purpose of joint trial all the parties to the cases
must be the same. What is necessary is whether the subject matter of the suit
WP(C) No.19571/2009
2
is same and some common question of law or fact arise in the suits (See Prem
Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad (2007(1) KLT 910 (SC), paragraph
Nos.13 to 16). As I stated observation of learned Munsiff that parties in
O.S.No.198 of 2005 and the other suits are different cannot as such be
accepted. But there is dispute between the parties before me whether the whole
or any portion of the subject matter of O.S.No.198 of 2005 is involved in any of
the two other suits. While learned counsel for petitioner contends that subject
matter of O.S.No.198 of 2005 is also the subject matter of O.S.No.686 of 2005,
learned counsel for respondents contend otherwise. That is a matter which the
learned Munsiff has to decide after going through the respective plaints and
other materials on record.
Resultantly the order under challenge to the extent that learned Additional
Munsiff has disallowed joint trial of O.S.No.198 of 2005 along with two other
suits mentioned in the order is set aside and that matter is remitted to the
learned Munsiff for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above.
Writ Petition is allowed as above.
I.A.No.6912 of 2010 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks