SUNNY Vs. P P GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Principal Sub Court, Thrissur passed an order for joint trial of O.S.Nos.559 of 2004, 661 of 2004, 798 of 2004 and 117 of 2008. Later, the plaintiff in O.S.No.117 of 2008 submitted before Court, on the date on which the suit was listed for trial, that the plaintiff in that suit did not get notice of the application for joint trial. That no such notice was given was admitted by the petitioners. THErefore, the court below reviewed the order passed earlier and passed the order dated 24.9.2010, holding that O.S.No.117 of 2008 should be separately tried. That order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) O.S.No.661 of 2004 is filed by Francis George, S/o.P.P.George for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. The suit was filed by P.P.George in his capacity as power of attorney holder of Francis George. The petitioners herein are the defendants in that suit. O.S.No.559 of 2004 was filed by P.P.George for return of the advance amount on the basis of an alleged agreement for sale. The defendants are the first petitioner herein and his mother. Later, the mother of the first petitioner died and her legal representatives are the first petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 herein. O.S.No.798 of 2004 is filed by P.P.George against the first petitioner herein for return of the advance amount on the basis of an alleged agreement for sale. O.S.No.117 of 2008 was filed by P.P.George against the first petitioner herein for recovery of amount covered by a cheque. It is stated that an agreement for sale was entered into and an advance amount was given by P.P.George to Sunny, the first petitioner. When the amount was demanded back, Sunny issued a cheque. The cheque was dishonoured and therefore, O.S.No.117 of 2008 was filed for realization of that amount.

(3.) FROM the facts stated above, it is clear that common contentions are raised in all the four suits, whether the suit is for recovery of money on the basis of an agreement or on the basis of a cheque or on the basis of a promissory note. The common defence in all the cases is that at the time when Francis George lent money to the defendants, several cheques, signed blank papers, promissory notes etc. were obtained from the defendants. In the nature of the contentions raised, it can be seen that the evidence to be adduced in all the cases is practically common. The parties are also substantially the same in all the cases. If separate trials are ordered, it would cause great inconvenience and prejudice to both parties. It is also likely that conflicting decisions may arise. Therefore, I am of the view that the order passed by the court below is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order dated 24.9.2010 is set aside. O.S.No.117 of 2008 shall also be tried along with O.S.Nos.559 of 2004, 661 of 2004 and 798 of 2004.