Under challenge is Ext.P5 order whereby the court below declined the prayer made by the petitioner to have a joint trial of O.S.No. 360/2000 along with O.S.Nos. 335/2000 and 340/2000.
2. The petitioner points out that if O.S.No. 360/2000 is independently tried, that may cause complications in view of the decision that may be taken in O.S.Nos. 335/2000 and 340/2000. The main contention is that 8 cents and 4 cents involved in these suits are lying undemarcated and are lying as contiguous plots.
3. It may at once be noticed that trial in O.S.Nos.335/2000 and 340/2000 was completed in the first instance and suits were disposed of. But in appeal, the matter was remanded. The remand order was challenged before this Court and this Court while confirming the remand O.P.(C) No. 3046 of 2014 -2-
order, allowed the parties to amend the pleadings and ordered to issue a Commission. Thereafter, a petition was moved by the petitioner for joint trial of O.S.No. 360/2000 along with other two suits.
4. A good measure of the evidence is complete in earlier two suits namely O.S.Nos.335/2000 and 340/2000 and after hearing the petitioner, this Court finds it difficult to come to the conclusion that there is anything in common between O.S.Nos.335/2000 and 340/2000 on the one hand and O.S.No.360/2000 on the other hand. Further, the suits are in different stages. The lower court has also observed that this Court had directed the lower court to dispose of the O.S.Nos.335/2000 and 340/2000 within a period of one year from 10.06.2014. Under these circumstances, the court below felt that there is no justification in ordering joint trial.
5. After having gone through the order of the court below and after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the O.P.(C) No. 3046 of 2014 -3-
order of the court below.
This petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
ds //True copy// Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE P.A. to Judge