Petitioner challenged an order allowing a joint trial of two pending civil suits. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding joint trial necessary to avoid conflicting decisions as the outcome of one suit would impact the other.
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
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2860 of 2016 (O)
OS 257/2013 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM -------------------
PETITIONER(S):
SMT. K.V.SAREENA, D/O.LATE DR. K.V.VASUDEVAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SAREENA SADANAM, HOUSE NO.M2-65, K.P.VALLON ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA-682 020.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.M.POLY MATHAI SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES
RESPONDENT(S):
1. K.V.PRABHASH, S/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KARUNYA HOUSE, PLOT NO.G-7, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036.
2. DR. K.V.SIBI, D/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, NAYANA EYE CARE CENTRE, NEAR TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, ATTINGAL-695 101, TRIVANDRUM.
3. DR. K.V.SINDHU, D/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, AGED 39 YEARS, SANNIDHI, DOOR NO.34/1912-E, KEERTHI NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 024.
4. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, COCHI-18.
5. UNION BANK OF INDIA, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16.
6. STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER AND MANAGER, SAFEENA MANSION, GROUND FLOOR, OPPOSITE DEEPA THEATRE, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI. R4 BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN,SC
R5 BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI R6 BY SRI.V.L.SHENOY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
OP(C).No. 2860 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
| PETITIO ------- |
NER(S)' ------- |
EXHIBITS --------- |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P1 | A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.257/2013. |
| EXHIBIT | P2 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT/1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P3 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 2ND DEFENDANT/2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 3RD DEFENDANT/3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P5 |
TRUE COPY OF I.A.5007/2016 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR JOINT TRIAL. |
| EXHIBIT | P6 |
TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P5 PETITION. |
| EXHIBIT | P7 |
TRUE COPY OF THE CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.5007/2016 DATED 2.11.2016. |
| EXHIBIT | P8 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.271/2015 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER SUBSEQUENT TO EXHIBIT P7. |
| RESPOND ------- |
ENT(S)' ------- |
EXHIBITS NIL --------- |
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
K.V.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
===================
O.P.(C). No. 2860 of 2016
=======================
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the court below ordering joint trial under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
as O.S.No.271 of 2015 before Sub Court, Ernakulam. The 3rd
O.P.C.No.2860 of 2016 2
respondent filed Ext.P5 application as I.A.No.507 of 2016 for joint trial of these two cases and the petitioner filed Ext.P6 objection to the same stating that there is no necessity for a joint trial and he was not a party to the other proceedings. But that petition was allowed by the court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.
Ext.P8 suit O.S.271 of 2015 are defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.257 of
2013 filed by the petitioner seeking partition of four items of properties which includes the subject matter in O.S.271 of 215
O.P.C.No.2860 of 2016 3
now pending before Sub Court, Ernakulam. O.S.No.271 of 2015
was filed by the 3rd respondent herein against the 1st respondent who are the defendants No.3 and 1 in O.S.257 of 2013. The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.257 of 2013 filed the suit against the 1st defendant in that case claiming that she is the absolute owner of upstair portion of the building situated in the property and also for mandatory injunction and compensation for use and occupation. The same claim has been made by the 3rd defendant in the partition suit as well on the basis of the will. So the question as to whether the 3rd defendant in O.S.257 of 2013 is entitled to get an exclusive right over a portion of the property which is subject of the partition suit is a question to be decided in the partition suit. That will have some impact in the suit O.S.271 of 2015 as well. Though it is a dispute between the co defendants as far as the suit O.S.257 of 2013 is concerned, that will also have some impact in the final decision of both the cases. So under such circumstances though the petitioner is not a party to O.S.271 of 2015, to avoid conflicting decisions, especially when the decision in the partition suit will have some impact in Ext.P8 suit, it is necessary that both the cases will have to be tried jointly. So the order passed by the court below ordering joint trial of both these cases is perfectly
O.P.C.No.2860 of 2016 4
justifiable which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it does not suffer any illegality or infirmity.
So the above petition is dismissed in limine
Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned court immediately.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SKV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's order allowing a joint trial of two pending civil suits involving overlapping parties and subject matter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaApplied¶31
Smt. K.V. Sareena
K.V. Prabhash
Dr. K.V. Sibi
Dr. K.V. Sindhu
Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd
Union Bank of India
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. Ramakrishnan
Parties & counsel
