The main legal point established in the judgment is that a joint trial can be ordered if some common question of law or fact arises in both proceedings or if the right to relief claimed in them arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions, and it is not necessary for all the questions or issues to be common to both actions for a joint trial to be ordered.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.1.2012 in Tr.O.P.No.99 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in representative capacity as partner in O.S.No.335 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode and the second defendant in O.S.No.403 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Court, Erode. The first suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the partnership premises either at the Head Office or the Branch Office or interfering in any manner with the internal management of the plaintiff's firm. The other suit is filed by the first respondent herein for a judgment and decree, directing the defendants to surrender the vacant possession of the suit property within a time frame and to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit property at Rs.10,000/-per month from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession.

3. The suits were contested by the parties. It is seen from the records that O.S.No.335 of 2009 is pending at the stage of arguments and O.S.No.403 of 2010 is at the stage of trial. The petitioner is in the capacity of a partner representing the company Mars Dye Chem, a registered Partnership firm.

4. While so, O.S.No.335 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode for permanent injunction, was dismissed ex-parte on 7.8.2009. Thereafter, application in I.A.No.1183 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was filed and the same was allowed on condition on 28.1.2011 on payment of costs. Then, the petition in I.A.No.163 of 2011 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was taken up for enquiry, and in the meanwhile, the petitioner in the capacity as the partnership firm, preferred C.R.P. (NPD).No.1066 of 2011 before this Court against the findings in I.A.No.1183 of 2009, in which, this Court granted stay on 17.3.2011. In view of the same, the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode has periodically adjourned the matter stating that the stay was still in force. The suit in O.S.No.403 of 2010 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Erode, is for delivery of possession besides damages, and it is pending for trial. At that stage, the petitioner filed Transfer Original Petition in Tr.O.P.No.99 of 2011 for withdrawal of O.S.No.335 of 2009 pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Erode to try along with O.S.No.403 of 2010 pending on its file. The said Tr.O.P. was dismissed by the impugned order by the learned Principal District Court, Erode, on the ground that the points to be determined in both the suits are totally different from each other, against which, the present C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner.

5. This Civil Revision Petition was taken on file on 2.3.2012 and notice of motion was ordered, returnable in three weeks and this Court granted interim stay till then. Thereafter, it was not extended and the matter stood thus.

6. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his submissions, has strenuously contended that it is not necessary that all questions or issues that arise should be common to both the actions and if some issues and some evidence are common, it would be sufficient for joint trial, especially, when the two actions arise out of the same transaction and therefore, the power to order for joint trial cannot be curtailed by introducing a restriction. Therefore, the learned Principal District Judge is not correct in dismissing the Tr.O.P. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 (1) SCC 97 (SBI Vs. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd):

"10. A joint trial can be ordered by the court if it appears to it that some common question of law or fact arises in both proceedings or that the right to relief claimed in them are in respect of or arise out of the same trans