K V GEORGE Vs. VASUDEVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.84/2000 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner. The suit has been filed by the petitioner for recovery of money. The suit is pending. The defendant in the suit filed Transfer O.P.Nos.196 & 197/2001 for transfer of O.S.Nos.716 & 812/1999 pending before the I Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam to the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam where O.S.No.84/2000 is pending. According to the applicant in the Transfer O.P. two suits pending before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam and O.S.No.84/2000 are connected suits, that for a proper appreciation of the contentions raised by the petitioners in all the three suits, it is said that it is highly necessary in the interest of justice that all the the suits are disposed of by the same court. In the circumstances, the defendant in O.S.No.84/2000 prayed for a direction to transfer O.S.Nos.716 & 812/1999 pending before the I Additional Munsiff's Court to the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) THE learned District Judge passed a common order on 20th October, 2001, produced as Ext.P3 on the following terms: THE learned Judge observed in Ext.P3 that I have no hesitation to hold that considering the nature of contentions set up by the petitioners it will be advantageous and ideal, if the same judicial mind is applied to the facts in all the three cases. Such a course, if followed, I am satisfied will advance the interests of justice ideally. No prejudice is likely to result to anyone by issuing such a direction. THE learned Judge allowed the transfer applications and ordered transfer of two suits to the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, where O.S.No.84/2000 is pending. On transfer two suits are re-numbered as O.S.Nos.685 & 686/2001.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the writ petitioner filed I.A.Nos.191/2004 and 5770/2005 to review the order dated 21/10/2003 passed in I.A.No.4360/2003 and to condone the delay of 50 days in preferring I.A.No.191/2004 respectively. The learned Sub Judge considered the above-said I.As. on merits. For the reasons I have stated in detail in the preceding paragraphs, the court below held that no grounds are made out to review the order allowing joint trial in I.A.No.4360/2003. The court below also considered the delay petition on merits. IA.No.4360/2003 filed for joint trial was allowed on 21/10/2003. The petition for review was filed on 9/1/2004. The petition to condone the delay was filed not along with the petition for review; but subsequently on 19/11/2005. The petition to condone of delay is not supported by an affidavit of the party or his counsel. The affidavit was filed by the Advocate's Clerk. The court below on facts held that the reasons stated are not sufficient to condone the delay. Therefore, the learned Judge dismissed the delay petition and consequently, the petition for review was also dismissed. For the reasons I have stated in detail in the preceding paragraphs and for the reason that no objection was filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.4360/2003, I find that no valid grounds are made out by the petitioner to interfere with Ext.P6 order in the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.