IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 73 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2015 IN I.A.NO.3145 OF 2015 IN OS NO.1183 OF 2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR PETITIONER/S:

SIVADASAN AGED 51 YEARS S/O.CHALLIYIL KUMARAN,ERIYAD VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

BY ADV SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT/S:

1 RAVEENDRAN S/O.KARIYEZHATH THUPRAN,LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR,PIN-680664.

2 MUHAMMED YOUSUF S/O.KARUKAPADATH NAMBIDIYANCHALLIL KUNJU MOIDEEN, ERIYAD DESOM,VAZHAKALA VILLAGE,NEAR THIRKKANAM KSHETHRAM,PIN-680664.

3 HAMSA S/O.KARIYEZHATH ABDURAHIMAN,ERIYAD AMSOM,PIN-

680664.

4 JOSHY S/O.KAIMAPARAMBIL SUBRAMANIAN,ERIYAD DESOM,PIN-

680664.

BY ADVS.

SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.K.V.VASAVAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

K.BABU, J -------------------------------------------------

O.P.(C).No.73 of 2016 -------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 17th day of March, 2025

JUDGMENT

The challenge in this Original Petition is to Ext.P5 order whereby the trial Court ordered consolidation of two suits.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2121 of

2014 on the file the Munsiff’s Court, Kodungallur. Respondent No.1 is the defendant in that suit. The petitioner prayed for declaring easement right over the plaint A schedule property in the suit.

3. Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.1183 of 2014 against the petitioner and five others. He has prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the plaint schedule properties therein. The properties are lying adjacent to each other. The trial Court found that the subject matter in both the suits is one and the same, and the evidence to be adduced in both the suits are common in nature. Based on those findings, the trial Court ordered consolidation of the suits.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter in both the suits are similar.

6. I have gone through the copies of the respective plaints. The parties and the properties are the same. The claim of easement appears to be the crux of the dispute. 7. 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. In Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement [AIR 2004 SC 1687], 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.

8. In Prem Lala Nahata and Another v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria [AIR 2007 SC 1247], on the purpose of consolidation of two suits or proceedings, the Supreme Court held thus: -

".............. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are, by order of the court, combined or united and treated as one cause or matter.

The main purpose of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or