Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE2D DAY OF APRIL201412TH CHAITHRA, 1936 OP(C).No. 968 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.4492/2013 IN OS NO. 584/2011 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA ....... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. SATHI GOPALAKRISHNAN,AGED68YEARS, W/O.LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN, PARAMPIL VEEDU, PALACE WARD, MULLACKAL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.
2. MURUGAN, AGED43YEARS, S/O.LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN, PARAMPIL VEEDU, PALACE WARD, MULLACKAL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.
3. LEKSHMY SHAYAM, AGED41YEARS, PARAMPIL VEEDU, PALACE WARD, MULLACKAL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. (2ND AND3D PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,THE FIRST PETITIONERS) BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SOMARAJAN, AGED55YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), SREENILAYAM, N.T.WARD, MULLACKAL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA - 681 009.
2. AISHAMMA, AGED52YEARS, W/O.SOMARAJAN, SREENILAYAM, N.T.WARD, MULLACKAL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA - 681 009. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0204-2014 ALONG WITH OPC.NO.977/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.968/2014 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.584/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P4: COPY OF I.A.NO.4492/3013 IN O.S.NO.584/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER
DTD. 03/02/2014 IN I.A.NO.4492/2013 IN O.S.NO.584/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TOJUDGE Kss V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
--------------------- O.P.(C) Nos.968 & 977 of 2014 --------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2014
JUDGMENT
The suits are one for declaration of title over the plaint A schedule property and for recovery of possession of the plaint B schedule property. The plaint A schedule property in all the 21 suits pending before the court of the Munsiff of Alappuzha are one and the same. The plaint B schedule property however differs in all the suits even though it forms part of plaint A schedule property. The defendants in the 21 suits are the occupants of the plaint B schedule property from whom recovery of possession is sought.
2. The plea for joint trial of all the 21 suits has been turned down by the court below by the order impugned. The defendants in all the 21 suits differ and the plaint B schedule property also differs even though plaint A schedule property is one and the same. However the plaintiffs are one and the same and the nature of the enquiry in the suits is also the same. A joint trial as sought by the petitioners would be cumbersome and lead to complications and the court below was right in rejecting that request. OP (C) Nos.968 & 977 of 2014 2 3. I however direct the court of the Munsiff of Alappuzha to have a simultaneous trial of all the 21 suits. This is to allay the apprehension of the petitioners/plaintiffs about the possible conflict of decisions. All the suits shall be posted on the same day for recording the evidence one by one and also for addressing arguments. The judgment in all the 21 suits shall also be pronounced on the same day. The court below shall afford opportunity to the parties to complete the steps and post the cases for simultaneous trial. The Original Petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.