ETL HOSPITALITY SERVICES LIMITED Vs. ARJUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE to the second respondent is dispensed with since no relief is claimed in the suits against him and in view of the decision I propose to take.

(2.) EXT.P15, order dated May 27, 2011 on I.A.No.535 of 2011 in O.S.No.519 of 2008 of the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam is under challenge. That was an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for joint trial of O.S.Nos.519 of 2008 and 521 of 2008, both pending in the Court of learned first Additional Sub Judge. In both the suits petitioner/plaintiff has sought for a decree for specific performance of the agreements for sale (allegedly) executed by respondents 1 and 3 in respect of the subject matter of the suits. Respondents 1 and 3 are the first defendants in O.S.Nos.519 and 521 of 2008, respectively while the second respondent is the common second defendant in both suits. According to the petitioner, agreements for sale of the properties were arranged through the second respondent and hence, he is impleaded as party in both suits. In O.S.No.519 of 2008 the (alleged) agreement is dated 30.11.2006 in respect of 28.33Ares belonging to the first respondent. In O.S.No.521 of 2008, prayer for specific performance concerns 36.42 Ares belonging to the third respondent (first defendant in that suit). In both cases, petitioner says that it was ready and willing to purchase the properties but, respondents 1 and 3 did not perform their part of the contract and hence the suits. Respondents 1 and 3 filed written statement in both the cases denying execution of the agreements and contending that they had executed separate power of attorney in favour of petitioner for certain other purpose. They denied receiving any advance sale consideration as the petitioner says.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Prem Lal Nahata Vs. Chandi Prasad (2007(1) KLT 910 (SC)) in paragraph 16 has referred to the circumstance where consolidation of the suits can be ordered. It is stated that the main purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. THE jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the Court and it appears to the Court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. Here, it is not disputed that respondents 1 and 3 are the son and mother, respectively. Going by the version of petitioner, both transactions were negotiated through the second respondent/second defendant and though separate agreements were allegedly executed on the same day, it is contended that consideration was paid together to respondents 1 and 3. I must also bear in mind the contention of respondents 1 and 3 is that they had not executed any agreement and that they had only given a power of attorney in favour of the petitioners. Considering all these circumstances, I am inclined to think that it is appropriate that the suits are tried and disposed of jointly. I must also bear in mind that by doing so, respondents 1 and 3 are not prejudiced or affected in any manner. In that view of the matter I am inclined to think that refusal to order joint trial is not legal and proper. Resultantly this original petition is allowed. Ext.P15, order is set aside and I.A.No.535 of 2011 in O.S.No.519 of 2008 will stand allowed. Learned Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam is directed to consolidate the suits and dispose of the same jointly.