Petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application for joint trial of two interconnected civil suits involving disputes over property titles and injunctions. High Court allowed joint trial to avoid divergent findings.
Impugned order set aside; application for joint trial allowed; disposal directed within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP(C).No. 1105 of 2016 ()
-------------------------(I.A.NO.1229/2016 IN O.S.NO.381/2013 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT-1, KOZHIKODE)
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :
VIPIN LAL N., S/O.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 31 YEARS, NEDUTHIRI, MAYANAD P.O, MAYANAD DESOM, KURUVATTOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 008.
BY ADVS.SRI.NIRMAL. S SMT.VEENA HARI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :
NARAYANI AMMA, W/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 77 YEARS, KIZHAKKE TATTARAKKAL, PARAMBIL P.O, PARAMBIL DESOM, KURUVATTOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 012.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
OP(C).No. 1105 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................. O.P.(C).No.1105 of 2016
....................................................... Dated this the 9th day of August, 2016.
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2
O.P.(C).No.1105 of 2016
respondent.
O.P.(C).No.1105 of 2016 3
from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and alienating the property etc. The plaint in the suit was produced and marked as Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the written statement filed by the petitioner in that suit as he is the only respondent in that case. According to the petitioner, he was working abroad and when he came and engaged for construction of a house in the property covered by the impugned document, the respondent and her children obstructed him from entering into the property and making construction and so he was compelled to file OS.No.105/2015 before the same court for injunction restraining the defendants in that suit from trespassing into the property and obstructing construction of building in that property. It is true that suit OS.No.381/2013 was decreed ex parte twice and thereafter on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner, ex parte decree was set aside and it was again listed for the third time. It was at that time that the present petition for joint trial was filed. The reason for the absence of the petitioner in conducting the case etc need not be gone into by this court in this petition as that was condoned by the court below and the application to set aside ex parte decree was allowed and now he has been permitted to participate in the trial. Further it is seen from the allegations in both the plaints that the issues in both the cases are regarding the validity of the document of title by which the petitioner claims right over the property as
4
O.P.(C).No.1105 of 2016
validity of the same being challenged and to be declared as null and void by the respondent in her suit OS.No.381/2013. Further the result of one suit will have some impact on the other suit as well. The principle of joint trial is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and divergent finding being rendered by different courts in respect of the same subject matter and point in controversy. If that principle is applied, it cannot be said that these suits are having different point to be considered. The document that is being relied on by both the parties is the same document. So under such circumstances, merely because an application has been filed at a belated stage for joint trial is not a ground for dismissal of that application if joint trial will avoid conflicting decisions being rendered and also avoid multiplicity of proceedings and save the time of the court. The other defendants in the later suit are the children of the present respondent. In fact it is not necessary for a joint trial that all the parties must be same in both the suits. But the common question to be decided is the same, then joint trial of both the cases will have to be allowed. This principle has not been considered by the court below while deciding the application filed by the petitioner and the rejection of the petition by the court below for the reasons stated them is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. But at the same time, on the basis of the joint trial of the new suit with the old suit will not be taken
5
O.P.(C).No.1105 of 2016
advantage of by the petitioner to prolong the old suit and that can be protected by giving a direction to the court below to expedite the disposal of the cases as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, with two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. So, the petition is disposed of as follows:
i. The impugned order, Ext.P7 passed by the Additional Munsiff-I, Kozhikdoe in IA.No.1229/2016 in OS.No.38/2013 is set aside and the application is allowed and joint trial is allowed of the suit OS.No.381/2013 with OS.No.105/2015 pending before the same court.
ii. The court below is directed to expedite the disposal of both the cases as expeditiously as expeditiously as possible and OS.No.381/2013 can be treated as the leading case and evidence can be recorded in that case. The court below is directed to expedite the disposal of both the cases as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Interim order granted is vacated.
With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below at the earliest.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for joint trial of interconnected civil suits filed at a late stage should be dismissed merely due to delay.
Whether the principle of joint trial applies to avoid conflicting decisions on a common question of title involving the same document.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VIPIN LAL N.
NARAYANI AMMA
K. RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
