High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
C.K.GEORGE v. GIRIJA SANKAR, D/O.K.P.SANKARANARAYANAN - WP(C) No. 30015 of 2006(W)  RD-KL 1601 (15 November 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 30015 of 2006(W)
1. GIRIJA SANKAR, D/O.K.P.SANKARANARAYANAN,
2. K.P.SANKARANARAYANAN, -DO- -DO-
3. M/S. CHAKIAT FINANCING COMPANY,
6. SALY DEVASSIA, W/O. DEVASSIA,
7. ALICE ANTONY, W/O. ANTONY,
8. SAJI JACOB, W/O. JACOB,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.W.P.C.NO.30015 OF 2006 (W)
Dated this the 15 th day of November, 2006.
Petitioner is 5th defendant in O.S.87/98 and one of the defendants in the other suits. Petitioner filed I.A.1617/06, an application for joint trial of the suit O.S.87/98 along with 118/97, 124/97 and 31/02, contenting that defence raised by petitioner in all the cases is the same and therefore all the cases are to be tried jointly. Petition was opposed by plaintiff under Ext.P6 order, Sub Judge dismissed the application holding that parties are different in all the suits and the transaction are also different and in such circumstances, joint trial cannot be allowed. That order is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of constitution of India.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. Arguments of petitioner is that in all the cases the defence raised by petitioner and his wife, 9th defendant, is the same. According to them, signature in the partnership deed purporting to be their signatories were forged and to prove that aspect, the document was sent to an expert and the expert has now furnished a report confirming the case of the petitioner that it is a forged document and it is not possible to produce the original report in all the cases and therefore court below should have allowed joint trial, even though petitioners are different. W.P.C.NO.30015 OF 2006 (W) 2
3. On hearing learned counsel appearing for petitioner, I find no reason to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court to interfere with Ext.P6 order. O.S.87/98 was pending for the last 8 years before the court below. If petitioner wanted a joint trial of all the cases, he should have filed the petition much earlier and in event before evidence was recorded. The fact that evidence was recorded in O.S.87/98 is not disputed. In such circumstances no interference is warranted when learned Sub Judge exercised the discretion. But there is force in the submission of petitioner that he may n2ot be denied an opportunity to hear the remaining cases. Fairly it is made clear that if the petitioner files separate application for joint trial of the remaining suits, court may consider the request in the proper perspective bearing in mind that case of petitioner mainly depends on the report obtained from the expert, which is necessary in all the cases. Petition is accordingly dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.