Aandiappan vs Veerammal

S. Vimala, J.—The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, have filed this Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 20.1.2011 passed by the

learned District Munsif, Kulithalai in IA. No. 845 of 2009 in O.S. No. 185 of 2009, dismissing the petition seeking for joint trial along with the suit

in O.S. No. 127 of 2009. Originally, the respondent herein viz., Veerammal has filed a suit in O.S. No. 127 of 2009 on the file of the District

Munsif, Kulithalai seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property covering S. No. 1143/7.

Refuting the allegations in the suit, the defendant/fourth respondent has filed a written statement.

While the said suit is pending, the Plaintiffs/Revision Petitioners herein have filed a suit against the defendant/Respondent herein in O.S. No. 185

of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Kulithalai seeking for the relief of permanent injunction and joint possession in respect of S. No. 1143/1.

Denying the allegations in the suit, the defendant/respondent herein has filed a written statement.

When both the suits are pending, contending that the properties in both the cases are one and the same and therefore joint trial of both the suits

would help the parties, the revision petitioners herein have filed a petition u/s 151 of C.P.C., in I.A. No. 185 of 2009 in O.S. No. 845 of 2009 on

the file of the District Munsif, Kulithalai, seeking for joint trial of the suits in O.S. Nos. 127 and 185 of 2009.

The respondent herein/defendant in O.S. No. 185 of 2009 opposed the petition stating that neither the survey number nor the boundaries are

one and the same and therefore it should be dismissed.

On consideration of the rival contentions, the learned District Munsif, Kulithalai, holding that neither the properties nor the boundaries are one

and the same, dismissed the petition. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that though the description of survey number in both the suits are

different, it is to be seen that the property in S. No. 1143/1 was later sub divided as S. No. 1143/1 and 1143/7 and if the said fact is taken into

account, the Trial Court would have allowed the petition for joint trial.

The contention that the property in S. No. 1143/1 was later sub divided as S. No. 1143/1 and 1143/7 is the matter required to be proved by

adducing necessary evidence. In the absence of any prima facie material to substantiate, it is not conducive to order for joint trial.

Be that as it may. On consideration of the submissions of both parties, this Court feels that if simultaneous or parallel trial is ordered, the

interest of both parties can be protected.

Therefore, instead of ordering for joint trial, the learned District Munsif, Kulithalai is directed to conduct trial of both the suits in O.S. Nos. 127

and 185 of 2009 simultaneously and dispose of the suits on merits and in accordance with law. With the above direction, this Civil Revision

Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012 is closed.