K. Harilal, J.

1. What are the circumstances which are requisite for transferring a suit from one court to another court wherein another suit is pending, so as to try both cases jointly? This is the question that emerges for our decision in this appeal.

2. This intra court appeal is directed against the order in Tr.P(C) No.223 of 2012 of this Court passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. The appellants are plaintiffs in O.S.No.242 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal, a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the 1st respondent herein, who is the defendant in the original suit, from entering into the plaint schedule Trust properties and causing any obstruction with running of the school which is functioning in the Trust property. The 1st appellant/ 1st plaintiff is a Trust, constituted and registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act. 2nd appellant/ 2nd plaintiff is the Chairman and 3rd appellant is the Secretary of the 1st appellant Trust and Manager of the school. The 1st respondent/defendant is the younger brother of the 3rd appellant herein. According to plaint averments, the 1st respondent was working in the school as temporary Office Assistant on contract basis and he was terminated on 04.05.2011 on the allegation of misappropriation of `2.5 lakhs. Consequently, he began to create problems in the school and obstructed the smooth running of the school, which culminated in filing of a suit for injunction. Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.242 of 2011 of the Munsiff Court, Attingal was marked as Annexure A in the Tr.P.C. The 1st respondent herein resisted the said suit contending that he is not a temporary Assistant in the school and that he is a member of the Trust which runs the school.

3. The 1st respondent as 2nd petitioner along with his wife Lubina, Dr. S. Gopalakrishnan and one Kolammal filed O.P.No.433 of 2011 before the District Court, Kollam under Section 25 of the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 for removing appellants 2 and 3 as office bearers of the Trust and replacement of these posts from among the members including 1st respondent. The copy of that original petition was produced and marked as Annexure B in the transfer petition.

4. The contention raised in the transfer petition is that in both Annexure A suit and Annexure B petition, the disputed questions are common vis-`-vis, bonafides of the contentions of the 1st respondent regarding the constitution, composition and management of the first appellant Trust. If these cases are tried by two different courts, the possibility of rendering, conflicting Judgments cannot be ruled out and the same will cause considerable hardships, confusions and injuries to the parties. Hence prayed for, to withdraw O.S.No.242 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal and to transfer the same to the District Court, Kollam, enabling to be tried jointly along with O.P.No.433 of 2011 before the District Court, Kollam.

5. The learned single Judge of this Court rejected the transfer petition on the ground that the cause of actions are distinct and the nature of reliefs are different in both the proceedings. There cannot be a joint trial of both the proceedings especially when the personal right is adjudicated in one and a public right in another. Aggrieved by the impugned order, this transfer appeal is filed on various grounds.

6. The 1st respondent entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that the cause of actions of the suit and original petition are different. All parties in O.P.No.433 of 2011 are not parties in O.S.No.242 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal. The subject matter of the suit and original petition are totally different and are not identical. The claim raised in both the cases are totally different and have no relation to one another. One is a case of misappropriation of money by the 1