High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-11-30Dismissed

OP(C) Nos. 2631/2023, 2404/2023 and 2409/2023 collectively titled: Shadiya Beevi KVK v. Sayyed Hashim K.V.K; Sainaba Beevi v. Sayyed Hashim K.V.K; Mariyam Beevi KVK v. Sayyed Hashim K.V.K

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) Nos. 2631/2023, 2404/2023, 2409/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2023-11-30
Court Decision / Holding: These Original Petitions fail and the same will therefore stand dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shadiya Beevi KVK
Sainaba Beevi KVK
Mariyam Beevi KVK

Respondents

Sayyed Hashim K.V.K

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.K. Mohamed
• Jameel
• K.P. Bhagyesh

Counsels for Respondents

• K.P. Sreekumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Three Original Petitions, OP(C) Nos. 2631/2023, 2404/2023 and 2409/2023, in the Kerala High Court challenge an order Ext. P6 consolidating three suits in the Sub Court/Commercial Court, Manjeri, all for specific performance of separate sale agreements executed among siblings. The petitions are by Shadiya Beevi and Sainaba Beevi and Mariyam Beevi (petitioners/defendants) against Sayyed Hashim K.V.K (plaintiff). All three suits concern contiguous properties owned by four siblings; the disputes primarily rest on similar documentary evidence and a common plaintiff, though different witnesses and forms of evidence would be adduced in each case. The petitioners argue that the three suits are distinct and should not be tried together, given the differences in transactions, witnesses, and evidential aims. The respondent contends that consolidation would save time and avoid conflicting decisions, since the properties lie contiguously and the factual framework overlaps. The High Court, after hearing counsel, observed that while consolidation is not prohibited, it is not mandatory to consolidate; it relied on Prem Lala Nahata and Janardhanan Pillai to emphasise that consolidation may be allowed where common questions of law or fact arise, or where convenience justifies it. It held that Ext. P6 does not suffer illegality, and the petitions fail. The court thus dismissed the Original Petitions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – consolidation of suits (no explicit provision)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

sine qua non

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that consolidating three suits for joint trial is improper because each suit arises from separate sale agreements, executed on different dates, with distinct witnesses and separate evidence. They argued that the three suits involve different sets of issues and reliefs and that consolidation could cause prejudice by merging different factual matrices. They contended that misjoinder of causes of action or parties would ordinarily bar consolidation; they pointed to Navabharat Vignan Trust and Others v. Nasihudeen and Others (2013) as authority that a common question of law or fact must arise and that the suits arise out of the same transaction. They asserted that the court should follow caution, ensuring that trial evidence remains distinct to avoid injustice and conflicting decisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contended that the properties lie contiguously and are owned by four siblings; while the three sale agreements relate to different transactions, the evidential framework overlaps and the witnesses may be similar. Consolidation would save time and avoid conflicting decisions since the plaintiff is common and the relief sought is the same (specific performance). The suits involve the same general subject matter and would permit a joint trial without negating the separate facts. The court’s inherent power to consolidate and the aim of convenience justify Ext. P6, and misjoinder, if any, should not bar consolidation in the interests of justice.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Navabharat Vignan Trust and Others v. Nasihudeen and Others	2013 (1) KHC 1	Mentioned Only	Petitioners relied on it to argue that consolidation requires common questions; court did not adopt that view; cited as contrary argument.
Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad	2007 (1) KLT 910 (SC)	Positive	Supreme Court authority on consolidation power to save costs/time/effort and to consolidate where common questions of law or fact arise or for convenience.
Janardhanan Pillai v. Kochunarayani Amma	1976 KLT 279	Positive	Full Bench decision endorsing inherent power to order joint trial for convenience; cited in support of consolidation.
State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. and another	(2007) 1 SCC 97	Positive	Notion that consolidation serves convenience and efficiency; not all issues must be identical.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP(C) Nos. 2631/2023, 2404/2023 and 2409/2023 collectively titled: Shadiya Beevi KVK v. Sayyed Hashim K.V.K; Sainaba Beevi v. Sayyed Hashim K.V.K; Mariyam Beevi KVK v. Sayyed Hashim K.V.K and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/9TH AGRAHAYANA,** **1945** ## **OP(C) NO.2404 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 58/2020 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, MANJERI PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:** SHADIYA BEEVI KVK, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, RESIDING AT PUTHIYA MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYAL, TIRUR AMSOM, POOKAYAL DESOM, POOKAYAL BAZAR P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN – 676101. BY ADVS. P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL K.P.BHAGYESH ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:** SAYYED HASHIM K.V.KM S/O. SAYYED SWALISH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT VAYALILAKATH, KATTUNGAL, SAYYAD MANZIL , MAKKARAPARAMBA, KURUVA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676507. BY ADV.K.P.SREEKUMAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, ALONG WITH OP(C).2409/2023 AND 2631/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** - **2 -** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **OP(C) NO.2409 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.08.2023 IN I.A.NO.21/2022 IN OS NO.31/2018 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT,** ## **MANJERI** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:** SAINABA BEEVI, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, W/O.SADIQ THANGAL, SITHARA MANZIL, MALAPPURAM AMSOM, MUNDUPARAMBA DESOM, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN – 676507. BY ADVS. P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL K.P.BHAGYESH ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:** SAYYED HASHIM K.V.K, S/O.SAYYED SWALISH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT VAYALILAKATH, KATTUNGAL, SAYYAD MANZIL, MAKKARAPARAMBA, KURUVA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676507. BY ADV. K.P.SREEKUMAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, ALONG WITH OP(C).2404/2023 AND 2631/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/9TH AGRAHAYANA,** **1945** ## **OP(C) NO.2631 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 66/2020 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, MANJERI PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:** MARIYAM BEEVI KVK, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O.SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYA MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYAL, TIRUR AMSOM,POOKAYAL DESOM, POOKAYAL BAZAR P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN – 676107. BY ADVS. P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL K.P.BHAGYESH ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:** SAYYED HASHIM K.V.K, S/O.SAYYED SWALISH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT VAYALILAKATH, KATTUNGAL, SAYYAD MANZIL, MAKKARAPARAMBA, KURUVA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676507. BY ADV.K.P.SREEKUMAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, ALONG WITH OP(C).2404/2023 AND 2409/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** **- 4 -** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated, this the 30[th] day of November, 2023** **The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S. Nos.66/2020, 58/2020 and 31/2018, all pending before the Sub Court/Commercial Court, Manjeri. They are aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, which allowed consolidation of three suits preferred by the 1[st] respondent herein, all seeking specific performance of three agreements for sale.** **2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent.** **3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, although the relief sought for in the three suits is for specific performance, the facts are constituted of three different transactions, two of which were entered into on the same day; and one, on another day. The only common factor is that the plaintiff is common. The witnesses in the agreements** **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** **- 5 -** **are different; the transactions are different; the evidences to be adduced are different and therefore, the consolidation of the suits vide Ext.P6 is not justified, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.** **4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the properties in question in respect of which specific performance is sought for are lying contiguously, which belongs to 4 persons, who are the plaintiff and three sisters, of which, the three sisters are the petitioners herein. The nature of the evidence to be adduced is the same, or at any rate similar. The valuable time of the court can be saved, if the suits in question are tried jointly. Though by the same court, it will plug the possibility of conflicting decisions as well. Therefore, Ext.P6 order is not suffering from any illegality or infirmity is the submission made by the learned counsel.** **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** **- 6 -** **5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. This Court notice that all the suits are filed seeking specific performance of agreements for sale, entered into by the plaintiff with the respective defendant, who are his siblings. The refusal of performance of the agreements led to the institution of the instant suits. The named witnesses in the three agreements may be different, which, however would not change the nature and character of the evidence to be adduced in all the three suits. The parties are also substantially similar, or closely interrelated. In such circumstances, this Court cannot find any infirmity with the order allowing joint trial of the three suits.** **6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Navabharat Vignan Trust and Others v. Nasihudeen and Others** **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** **- 7 -** **[2013 (1) KHC 1] to contend that the suits cannot be consolidated, unless a common question of law or common question of fact arise in all the suits and when the reliefs sought for arise out of the same act/transaction or same series of acts/transactions. Besides, the parties shall also be the same. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad [2007 (1) KLT 910 (SC)], as also, by a Full Bench decision of the this Court in Janardhanan Pillai v. Kochunarayani Amma [1976 KLT 279].** **7. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court deems it apposite to extract the findings of the Honourable Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata** ## **(supra).** _**“It cannot be disputed that the court has power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. 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**_ **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** ## **- 8 -** _**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 arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 37, paragraph 69). If there is power in the court to consolidate different suits on the basis that it would be desirable to make an order consolidating them or on the basis that some common questions of law or fact arise for decision in them, it cannot certainly be postulated that the trying of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is something that is barred by law. The power to consolidate recognised in the court obviously gives rise to the position that mere misjoinder of parties or causes of action is not something that creates an obstruction even at the**_ **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** **- 9 -** _**threshold for the entertaining of the suit.”**_ **So also, the findings of the Full Bench in Janardhanan Pillai (supra) is also extracted here** ## **below:** _**“There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for consolidating suits. Neverthless courts order joint trial of two or more suits for the sake of convenience, and quite often to avoid conflicting decision. This is done by the court in the interests of justice in exercise of the inherent powers possessed by it. ..…......... Consolidation of two suits need not necessarily be by any agreement of parties, for, if a court, after hearing parties, feels that in the interests of justice it is necessary that two or more proceedings should be tried together, it is open to it order so to avoid repetition of the same evidence in the different cases or to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions in those cases or for other justifying reasons.”**_ **8. It could thus be seen that for consolidation of** **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** **- 10 -** **the suits, it is not a** _**sine qua non**_ **that all the issues to be decided should be same; it is enough that some of the issues to be decided are common. [see, in this regard State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. and another : (2007) 1 SCC 97]. The question is one of convenience of the court in disposing the matter expediently, once consolidation is allowed. Judged on that perspective also, this Court finds no illegality in respect of Ext.P6 Order.** **These Original Petitions fail and the same will therefore stand dismissed.** ## **Sd/-** ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** ## **- 11 -** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2404/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.58/2020 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S NO.58/2020 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.58/2020 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.21/2022 IN O.S. 31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN I.A NO.21/2022 IN O.S.NO.31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.21/2022 IN O.S.No.31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** ## **- 12 -** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2409/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S NO.31/2013 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.21/2022 IN O.S. 31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN I.A NO.21/2022 IN O.S.NO.31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2023 IN I.A NO.21/2022 IN O.S NO. 31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. ## RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUES SETTLED ON 25.05.2022 IN O.S.NO.58 OF 2020. EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUES SETTLED ON 27.06.2019 IN O.S.NO.31 OF 2018. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUES SETTLED ON 28.05.2022 IN O.S.NO.66 OF 2020. **OP(C) Nos.2631, 2404 and 2409 of 2023** ## **- 13 -** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2631/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.66/2020 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S NO.66/2020 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.66/2020 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.21/2022 IN O.S. 31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN I.A NO.21/2022 IN O.S NO.31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO. 21/2022 IN O.S NO.31/2018 OF SUBORDINATE COURT, MANJERI.