K. JOHN Vs. JOHN JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order of the District Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(T.P)No.120/2015, under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that, Ext.P1 suit O.S.No.84/2003 was filed by four plaintiffs including the petitioners herein, for declaration of title, possession and injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property against George Joseph and first respondent herein. That suit was dismissed for default during July, 2012 and thereafter, I.A.No.1770/2012 was filed for restoration of that suit and that was restored to file on 11.12.2014. After the dismissal of the suit and before restoration, according to the petitioners, the defendants in that suit have trespassed into plaint schedule property and cut and removed certain trees and caused damage to the property and so, the first petitioner herein as plaintiff for himself and on behalf of other co -owners, filed O.S.No.93/2013 before Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, claiming damages for the value of improvements damaged by the defendants in the suit property against the same defendants who are the defendants in O.S.No.84/2003. In the meantime, first defendant in both the cases, Shri.George Joseph died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants 3 to 7 who are the present respondents 2 to 6 in the present petition in both the cases. The first plaintiff in O.S.No.84/2003 was transposed as 7th defendant in that suit. The second suit was also filed by one of the co - owner claiming relief for and on behalf of the other co - owners. Since the nature of evidence to be adduced and the result in one case is dependent on the other, the petitioners filed O.P.(T.P)No.120/2015 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta for transfer of O.S.No.84/2003 pending before the Munsiff Court to Sub Court, Pathanamthitta to be tried along with O.S.No.93/2013 pending before that court. After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, dismissed the application, stating that the parties are different and there is no necessity for a joint trial. Dissatisfied with the same, the present petition has been filed, under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard Shri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri.Pradeep K.B., counsel for 5th respondent. Though notice was served on others, they did not appear.