Dated, this the 27th February, 2024 The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit, O.S.No.162/2018; and the defendant in the suit, O.S.No.173/2017, both pending before the Munsiff's Court, Payyanur. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 application for joint trial of the said suits. However, the same was dismissed, vide Ext.P9. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 order, the instant Original Petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since this Court choose to dispose of the matter in limine, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

3. This Court notice that the relief sought for in first suit, O.S.No.173/2017 as per Ext.P1 plaint is for declaration of easement by prescription over plaint C schedule property, so as to access B schedule room, and also, for an injunction. The second suit, O.S.No.162/2018 is preferred by the petitioner herein as the plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction to demolish plaint B schedule room and to close the business, which is conducted by the 2nd defendant therein. The contention urged is to the effect that the building has been constructed without any enabling licence/permit from the Muncipality concerned, wherefore, the building is liable to be demolished. According to the learned counsel, the easement sought for in the first suit, O.S.No.173/2017, is for the purpose of accessing the B schedule room, which is sought to be demolished in the second suit. Accordingly, the suits are liable to be tried jointly, is the submission made. Learned counsel would contend that the issue to be decided is one and the same.

4. This Court cannot endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As rightly found by the learned Munsiff, the parties are not the same in both the suits. The relief sought for are also different. The issue to be considered is also different and not as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. The contention that if the second suit is allowed, the prayer sought for in the first suit will become infructuous, rather not allowable, is far- fetched. This Court also notice that the demolition of a building, which is allegedly constructed without any permit, is not something to be granted on the mere asking. The same has to be considered in the light of the various provisions of the Municipalities Act and Rules. The Secretary of the Muncipality concerned, the Commissioner of Food Safety, The D.M.O, Kannur, The District Fire Officer etc., are parties to the second suit. The scope of the subject matter, which is being considered in the two suits are not one and the same, or even similar.

5. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the reasoned order vide Ext.P9. As it is well settled, this Court is not supposed to interfere with an order - in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution - unless the order is manifestly wrong or arbitrary.

In the circumstances, the Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww APPENDIX OF OP(C) 520/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.173/2017 ON THE FILES OF COURT OF MUNSIFF, PAYYANNUR DATED 27-10-2017.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER IN OS.NO.173/2017 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 04-06-2018.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.

162/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED OCTOBER 2018.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN OS NO.162/2018 DATED 25-01-2019.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN (2ND DEFENDANT) IN O.S.NO.162/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 25-01-2019.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE

3RD DEFENDANT IN OS 162/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 22-11-

2018.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA 2/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR JOINT TRIAL OF OS 173/2017 ALONG WITH OS 162/20218 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF