Suganya v. P.Muthusamy

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.10.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and C.M.P(MD)Nos.12604 & 12121 of 2024 C.R.P(MD)No.2228 of 2024:

1.Suganya 2.Sowmiya ... Petitioners / 3rd parties Vs.

1.P.Muthusamy 2.P.Sellammal 3.P.Logambal 4.M.Sureshkumar 5.M.Vijayakumar 6.P.Meenakshi 7.S.Indhumathi ... Respondents 1 to 7 / Petitioners / Defendants 1 to 7 1/6

8.P.Kandasamy 9.K.Banumathi 10.M.Thangavel 11.T.Geetha ... Respondents 8 to 11 / Respondents 1 to 4/ Plaintiffs 12.R.Arumugam 13.A.Eswari ... Respondents 12 & 13/ Respondents 5 & 6 / Defendants 8 & 9 Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.31 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Karur.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuaganathan for Mr.P.Athimoolapandian for R.1 Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R.2 to R.7 No Appearance for R.8 to R.13 2/6

C.R.P(MD)No.2127 of 2024:

1.P.Kandasamy 2.K.Banumathi 3.M.Thangavel 4.T.Geetha ... Petitioners / Respondents 1 to 4 / Plaintiffs Vs.

1.P.Muthusamy 2.P.Sellammal 3.P.Logambal 4.M.Sureshkumar 5.M.Vijayakumar 6.P.Meenakshi 7.S.Indhumathi ... Respondents 1 to 7 / Petitioners / Defendants 1 to 7 8.R.Arumugam 9.A.Eswari ... Respondents 8 & 9 / Respondents 5 & 6 / Defendants 8 & 9 3/6

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.31 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Karur.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarthy for Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuaganathan for Mr.P.Athimoolapandian for R.1 Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R.2 to R.7 No Appearance for R.8 & R.9 COMMON ORDER Heard both sides.

2.By the impugned order, the Court below has ordered joint trial of O.S.No.31 of 2017 and O.S.No.32 of 2017. The learned counsel have produced copies of the issues framed in both the suits. There is no commonality of the issues framed in the suits. My attention is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2007) 1 SCC 97 (State 4/6

Bank of India Vs Ranjan Chemicals Limited & Another). It was held therein that it is not necessary that all the questions or issues that arise should be common to both the actions. If some of the issues are common and some of the evidence to be let in is also common, that would be sufficient to order joint trial, especially when two suits arise out of the same transaction / series of transactions.

3.Since there is no commonality in issues, the question of joint trial will not arise at all. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. However it is directed that the two suits shall be simultaneously tried. It is also necessary to note that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.32 of 2017 were not even heard before the order for joint trial was passed. 4.These Civil Revision Petitions are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

21.10.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA 5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA To The Additional District Judge, Karur.

and C.M.P(MD)Nos.12604 & 12121 of 2024 21.10.2024 6/6