IMPORTANT POINT
The determination of the suits rests mainly on a common question, making it convenient to have them tried together, is a relevant consideration in exercising the power of consolidation of suits.

JUDGMENT :

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

1. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chalakkudy. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the fourth defendant in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016 on the file of the same court.

2. The main relief sought in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016 is for granting a decree of declaration that document No. 1440/2015 of the S.R.O, Annamanada executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the second defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property is only a document of security for the loan availed by the plaintiffs from the second defendant and that as per document No. 1676/2016 executed in favour of the fourth defendant by the other defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property, the defendants have got no right, title or interest in that property.

3. The respondent, who is the fourth defendant in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016, had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner as R.C.P. No. 30/2017 in the Rent Control Court, Chalakkudy seeking eviction of the petitioner from the building in the plaint schedule property. The petitioner herein raised a plea in the petition for eviction denying the title of the respondent herein and also denying landlord-tenant relationship between them. The Rent Control Court found that the denial of title of the respondent by the petitioner is genuine and dismissed R.C.P. No. 30/2017.

4. After the dismissal of R.C.P. No. 30/2017, the respondent instituted the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 against the petitioner. The main relief prayed for in that suit is for granting a decree for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title of the respondent.

5. The respondent filed an application as I.A. No. 210/2019 in the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 praying that joint trial of the two suits, O.S. No. 871/2019 and O.S. No. 38/2019, may be conducted. The petitioner filed objection to the aforesaid application raising various contentions.

6. As per Ext.P7 order, the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent for joint trial of the two suits and also ordered that evidence shall be recorded in the suit O.S. No. 871/2016.

7. The defendant in the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and propriety of Ext.P7 order.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court did not properly exercise its discretion in allowing joint trial of the two suits. Learned counsel would submit that the Rent Control Court had found that the title of the respondent over the building in the plaint schedule property can only be adjudicated after the conclusion of the trial of the suit O.S. No. 871/2016 and therefore, the suit O.S. No. 38/2019 filed by the respondent is premature and not maintainable.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that, on the dismissal of the petition for eviction on the ground that denial of his title over the building in the property by the petitioner is genuine, the respondent had got a legal right to institute the suit O.S. No. 38/2019. Learned counsel has further contended that, the basic evidence to be adduced by the parties in the two suits is the same and conducting joint trial of the two suits would be not only be convenient for the parties but also necessary in the interests of justice.

11. Before examining the question whether the court below has exercised its discretion properly in passing Ext.P7 order, I shall examine the principles of law with regard to consolidation of suits and conducting of joint trial.

12. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for consolidation and joint trial of suits. This procedure is based on the rule of convenience and necessity. It is based on the principle that procedure is the handmaid