The Kerala High Court has held that equity, justice, convenience and necessity govern the question of whether the joint trial of suits or other proceedings is required or not as there is no specific provision for the same in the Civil Procedure Code.

The Court was considering a petition challenging the order directing the joint trial of three suits by the trial court in a petition filed by plaintiff in one of the suits, who is the defendant in another suit.

The single-bench of Justice K. Babu observed, "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."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate R. Parthasarathy Seema while the Respondent was represented by Advocate K.P. Sudheer.

The Petitioner is defendant No.2 and the Respondent No.1 is the Plaintiff in the original suit. The petitioner instituted the Original Suit seeking an order of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property therein against Respondent No.1. The petitioner claims that himself, his wife and children have right over the plaint schedule property. They traced their title through registered deeds. Defendant No.1 filed another suit against Respondent No.1. He also sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent No.1. It was when the was ripe for trial respondent No.1 instituted another lawsuit to declare that he is the owner of the property to which the properties scheduled in suits form part. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed Interlocutory Application seeking joint trial of the said case along with suits. The trial Court allowed joint trial, holding that some issues and evidence to be let in are common and that separate trials may lead to duplication of evidence.

The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the joint trial will cause prejudice to the petitioner. It was further submitted that since one of the suits is a suit for injunction simpliciter wherein the possession of the property by the parties alone is the subject matter to be decided, there is no need to consolidate this case with another suit wherein Respondent No.1 seeks declaration of title over a larger extent of property.

On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that consolidation of the suits would meet the ends of justice.

The Court held that to decide on consolidation of suits, factors such as equity, justice, convenience and necessity are taken into consideration while principle of prejudice is applied.

The Court referred to Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement wherein the Supreme Court observed that consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses.

"Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits or proceedings enables the two suits to be consolidated for trial and decision.This may relieve the parties of the need to adduce the same or similar oral or documentary evidence more than once in the two suits at two different trials," the Court observed.

After taking into consideration, the other case laws, the Court observed, "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."

Asserting that validity of an order is to be decided on the touchstone of “prejudice” as it is the ultimate test, the Court stated that a separate trial of the suits will not cause any prejudice to Respondent No.1, whereas a joint trial will cause prejudice.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Muhammed vs. Raveendran Nair (2025:KER:2136)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate R. Parthasarathy

Respondent- Advocate K.P. Sudheer, Advocate M. Manju

Click here to read/ download Judgement



Kerala High CourtJustice K Babu

Sheetal Joon