Consolidation Of Suits Not Provided In CPC, Joint Trial Depends On Equity, Justice, Convenience And Necessity: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court (on January 14), while refusing to order a joint trial of suits, observed that the Civil Procedure Code does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits. Instead, its necessity is governed by equity, justice, convenience and necessity. Further, the Court may consider the principle of prejudice while ordering a joint trial.“The Civil Procedure Code does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits or other proceedings. Equity, justice, convenience and necessity govern the question of whether the joint trial of suits or other proceedings is required or not. The principle of prejudice may also be taken into account when the court orders a joint trial.”Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court decisions including Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (AIR 2004 SC 1687). Therein, the Apex Court had observed in this regard that consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from a multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses.The present petition was filed against the Trial Court's order directing the joint trial of three suits. Two civil suits were filed seeking a permanent injunction for a scheduled property against the respondent. However, another suit was instituted by the respondent to declare that he is the owner of the property.The Trial Court allowed a joint trial holding that some issues and evidence are common. This order was challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the order would cause prejudice as his suit was of injunction and the one filed by the respondent sought the declaration of title over a larger extent of property.At the outset, the Bench of Justice K. Babu observed a joint trial can be ordered if a case involves common question of law or fact. Further, a joint trial can also be ordered to avoid overlapping of evidence and for convenience of the parties.“The Court can order a joint trial if it appears to it that some common question of law or fact arises in two or more proceedings or that the right to the relief claimed in them is in respect of or arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order for joint trial.”“An order for joint trial is considered to be useful in that it will save the expenses of two attendance by counsel and witnesses, and the trial Judge will be enabled to try the two actions at the same time and take common evidence in respect of both the claims. A joint trial is ordered when a Court finds that the ordering of such a trial would avoid overlapping of evidence being taken in two or more causes, and it will be more convenient to try them together in the interests of the parties and in the interests of an effective trial of the causes.”Building on this, the Court adverted to the facts of the case. It observed that while two suits are for injunction simpliciter, the third one is a title suit. The Court said the claim in the first two suits and the third one is not interlinked.“The claim of the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.143 and 147 of 2017 is based on their possession of the properties. It cannot be said that the decision in O.S.Nos.143 and 147 of 2017 and the decision in the title suit by respondent No.1 may lead to conflict in decisions if they are separately tried. It is difficult to conclude that the claims of the parties in O.S.Nos.143 and 147 of 2017 and the claims of the parties in O.S.No.30/2020 are interlinked.,” the Court said.The Court also took note of the petitioner's contention that linking these suits may delay the adjudication of the simple injunction suits. Further, the nature of evidence is also different. Basis this, the Court observed that the ultimate test is prejudice. While a separate trial will not cause any prejudice to the respondent, a joint trial will prejudice the petitioner.“The validity of an order is to be decided on the touchstone of “prejudice”. The ultimate test is always the test of prejudice. A separate trial of the suits will not cause any prejudice to respondent No.1, whereas a joint trial will prejudice the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.143 & 147 of 2017.”Thus, the impugned order was set aside and the injunction suits were ordered to be delinked from the title suit. Apart from this, the Trial Court was ordered to dispose of the injunction suits within six months.Case Name: Muhammed V. Raveendran Nair And Others.,Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 34Case No.OP(C) No. 1279 Of 2022Click Here To Read/Download Order

Consolidation Of Suits Not Provided In CPC, Joint Trial Depends On Equity, Justice, Convenience And Necessity: Kerala High Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Consolidation Of Suits Not Provided In CPC, Joint Trial Depends On Equity, Justice, Convenience And Necessity: Kerala High Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers