Litigants should pursue consolidation of related cases rather than seeking a stay when separate trials are already in progress to ensure judicial economy.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.752 of 2005 of the first Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. He filed Ext.P4, application for stay of suit under Sec.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code”) until O.S.No.673 of 2005 pending in the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur is disposed of. That application was dismissed by Ext.P5, order. Hence the challenge to Ext.P5, order.

2. Ext.P3 is the plaint in O.S.No.673 of 2005 filed by the first respondent in this original petition and others. Ext.P1 is the plaint in O.S.No.752 of 2005.

3. Learned counsel submits that in O.S.No.673 of 2005 prayer is for a declaration that first respondent is the Metropolitan and Supreme Head of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church (for short, "the Church”) and for injunction against first defendant interfering with functioning of the first respondent. In O.S.No.752 of 2005 declaration prayed for is that order No.44/2005(stated to be issued by the first respondent in his capacity as Metropolitan and Supreme Head of the Church) is valid and binding on the defendants in that suit. Petitioner has filed Ext.P2, written statement disputing capacity of first respondent as Metropolitan and Supreme Head of the Church and claiming that Joseph Mar Koorilose who is the Metropolitan and first defendant in O.S.No.673 of 2005 has annulled order No.44 of 2005.

4. It is submitted that in the above circumstance it is appropriate and necessary that to avoid conflicting decisions, trial of O.S.No.752 of 2005 is stayed until O.S.No.673 of 2005 is disposed of.

5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in O.S.No.673 of 2005 trial has not commenced and that in O.S.No.752 of 2005, PWs.1 and 2 are examined. That suit is now posted for trial in the list on 19.02.2013. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that there are connected cases and respondents are intending to request for joint trial of all the cases by moving appropriate application for consolidation of the suits in the same Courts.

6. Having regard to the circumstances above stated I am not inclined to think that there should be a stay of trial of O.S.No.752 of 2005 until decision in O.S.No.673 of 2005. If according to the petitioner, issues involved in the suits are the same or common, or there are other circumstances justifying trial of the two cases jointly, it is open to the petitioners to move appropriate application before the learned District Judge, Thrissur for consolidation of the suits in the same Court and request the Court concerned for joint trial of the suit.

7. In view of what I have stated above, I direct that trial of O.S.No.752 of 2005 will stand adjourned to a day after two (2)

weeks from 19.02.2013.

Resultantly the petition is disposed of directing learned first Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur to postpone trial of O.S.No.752 of

2005 to a day after two weeks from 19.02.2013.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

Sbna