Allowed

Pulikkal Kavaki Munnayira Sangham,Pulikk v. the Registrar and Registrar of Societies

Kerala HC27 Jun 2011OP(C)/402/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application for joint trial of two ordinary suits involving the petitioner society and other respondents. It set aside the lower court's dismissal based on the ripeness of one suit, noting shared issues, parties, and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Original Petition allowed; order dismissing the application for joint trial set aside; court below shall allow application for joint trial.

Pulikkal Kavaki Munnayira Sangham,Pulikk Vs the… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

OP(C).No. 402 of 2011(O)

¶6

-----------------------OS.157/2008 of SUB COURT, MANJERI

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

PULIKKAL KAVAKI BUNNAYIRA SANGHAM, PULIKKAL,PULIKKAL.P.O-673673,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.V.MUJEEB RAHMAN.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES (GENERAL),MALAPPURAM.

¶14

MUHAMMEDKUTTY @ V.M.KUTTY,VADAKKUMKARA, CHERUKAVU AMSOM,CHERUVAYOOR DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

P.C.ABDULLA MASTER,CHERAKKATHODY HOUSE, PULIKKAL,PULIKKAL.P.O,PIN-673673, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

P.P.ABDUL SAMED,CHELAT HOUSE,PULIKKAL.P.O PIN-673673,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

KADAVATH MUHAMMEDKUTTY,KADAVATH HOUSE, PULIKKAL,PIN-673673,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

T.A.MUHAMMED @ BAPPU,ADAGAMPURAM HOUSE, PULIKKAL-PO,PIN-673673,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

V.E.MUHAMMEDALI,EDAKKAD HOUSE, PULIKKAL-PO,PIN-673673,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

BASHEERKOTTA,PUVVATHIKOTTU HOUSE, PULIKKAL.P.O,PIN-673673,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶21

MUHAMMED ABDUL RAHIMAN,PATHROT HOUSE, PULIKKAL.P.O,PIN-673673,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶22

OP(C).No. 402 of 2011(O)

¶23

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM.

¶24

ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI FOR R2-9 SMT.SMITHA GEORGE FOR R2-9

¶25

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

OP(C).No. 402 of 2011(O)

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶28

EXT.P1: COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.21336/04 DTD.11.8.2008

¶29

EXT.P2: COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.157/08

¶30

EXT.P3: COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.96/09

¶31

EXT.P4: COPY OF PETITION FOR JOINT TRIAL.

¶32

EXT.P5: COPY OF PETITION FILED IN OS NO.157/08

¶33

EXT.P6: COPY OF TYPED COPY OF ORDER DTD.22.1.2011 IN IA NO.153/011 IN OS NO 157/2008 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI.

¶34

RESPONDENTS EXTS:

¶35

EXT.R2(a): COPY OF ORDER NO.R1.2299/08 DTD.18.8.08 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), MALAPPURAM A/W. THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR DTD.4.11.2008.

¶36

/TRUE COPY/

¶37

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶38

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶39

¶40

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2011

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioner society filed OS No.157 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Manjeri against the respondents for a declaration that the orders passed by the first defendant approving the list of office bearers of the Society for various periods are illegal, and for consequential reliefs.

¶43

Respondents 2 to 9 and the Sangham filed OS No.96 of 2009 for a declaration that the list of office bearers approved by the Registrar and Registrar of Societies (General), Malappuram for some other periods was illegal and invalid and for consequential reliefs.

¶44

The petitioner filed I.A.No.153 of 2011 before the Court below for joint trial of O.S.Nos.157 of 2008 and 96 of 2009. It was pointed out in the affidavit accompanying the

¶45

¶46

application that the issues involved in both the suits are the same and the parties are also substantially the same.

¶47

It would appear that the application was not opposed by the respondents. However, the court below dismissed the application for joint trial on the ground that O.S.No.96 of 2009 is not ripe for trial and it is posted for steps. It was held that if the application is allowed, the court would not be able to conduct the trial of O.S.No.157 of 2008.

¶48

That one suit is not ripe for trial, as such, may not be a ground for refusing the prayer for joint trial. From the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsel on either side, it is fairly clear that the issues involved in both the cases are substantially the same and the parties are substantially the same. The documents to be produced are the same and the evidence to be adduced in the cases is also the same. If the two suits are tried separately, it is likely that conflicting decisions may arise. It would also result in unnecessary waste of judicial time and would cause inconvenience

¶49

¶50

to both parties. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid any conflicting decision and also to suit the general convenience of the parties, it would be ideal if the two suits are tried together and disposed of together. I am of the view that the court below was not right in holding that joint trial could not be allowed on the ground one of the two suits is not ripe for trial.

¶51

Accordingly, the Original Petition is allowed. The order in I.A.No.153 of 2011 is set aside. The court below shall allow the application for joint trial.

¶52

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .

¶53

cms

Pulikkal Kavaki Munnayira Sangham,Pulikk v. the Registrar and Registrar of Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulikkal Kavaki Munnayira Sangham,Pulikk v. the Registrar and Registrar of Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Pai & Another Vs State of Kerala

Reshma Susheelan Vs State of Kerala

Devi and Another Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Ibrahimkutty Vs State & Another

Hamza Vs Yuseph

Kunnappada Govindan Vs Puthiyapurayil Kunhiraman