R S BHAGAVAN Vs. R N NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being plaintiff in the partition suit in O.S.No.396/2011 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 11.04.2016 made on the application filed by the respondents herein who happen to be the plaintiffs in another suit in O.S.No.256/2012 whereby the trial Court has directed clubbing of these two suits for the purpose of trial and disposal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner finds fault with the impugned order on the ground that the nature of decrees sought in these two suits is completely different from each other; in the second suit in O.S.No.256/2012, the plaintiff's in the partition suit in O.S.No.396/2011 are not parties and that the clubbing would amount to misjoinder of proceedings, not being in the best interest of adjudication of both the suits which warrant independent trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, contends that though true it is, that the nature of decree sought in the subsequent suit in O.S.No.256/2012 is a bit different from the nature of the decree sought in O.S.No.396/2011, that difference per se does not constitute a ground for assailing the clubbing; the norms governing clubbing of two different proceedings are now well settled and that they ordinarily do not require that the possible outcome of the two arguably different proceedings need to be identical; nor that all parties in one proceeding need to be parties in the other as well; lastly, that in the absence of some tangible prejudice being occasioned by the clubbing, the impugned order is unassailable even if it has some lacunae, in writ jurisdiction.