BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.01.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.(MD) No. 5598 of 2024 H.Abdul Hakeem ... Petitioner -vs-

1.C.Muruganantham

2.J.Noorpaigirabegum ...Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal Order dated 18.08.2023 passed in O.S.No.123 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur.

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Pon Senthil Kumaran For R-1 : Mr. A.Siva Subramanian For R-2 : No appearance

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition invoking under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the Order dated 18.08.2023 made in O.S.No.123 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as by the description in the suit in O.S. No. 123 of 2020 before the Trial Court for the sake of clarity and convenience.

3. Heard Mr. S.Pon Senthil Kumaran, Learned Counsel for the First Defendant and Mr. A.Siva Subramanian, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties.

4. The First Defendant in O.S. No. 123 of 2020 is the Defendant in O.S. No. 330 of 2019, which is renumbered as O.S. No.73 of 2023. The Plaintiff in both the suits, viz., C.Muruganantham had filed suits in O.S.No.123 of 2020 and O.S.No.73 of 2023 before the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. The suit in O.S. No. 123 of 2020 has been filed for claiming the relief of specific performance and the suit in O.S. No. 73 of 2023 has been field for recovery of money. In the order passed in TR. O.P. No. 172 of 2022, the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur had directed the learned II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur, to decide as to whether the suit in O.S. No.330 of

2019 has to be tried along with the suit in O.S. No.123 of 2020 pending on the file of that Court as simultaneously or jointly as per law.

5. It is in the background that the application had been filed for joint trial, but the II Additional District Court, Thanjavur, had called the matter for simultaneous trial on 18.08.2023.

6. On going through the material placed on record with reference to the plaints and parties, it is seen that it becomes burden which relates to the same party and in these circumstances, it shall be incumbent upon the Trial Court to deal with the issues raised in each of the suits specifically and rendered judgment in the matter.

7. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Ranjan Chemicals Limited and Another [2007 1 SCC 97] which reads as follows:

“11. A joint trial is ordered when a Court finds that the ordering of such a trial, would avoid separate overlapping evidence being taken in the two causes put in suit and it will be more convenient to try them together in the interests of the parties and in the interests of an effective trial of the causes. This power inheres in the Court as an inherent power. It is not possible to accept the argument that every time the Court transfers a suit to another court or orders a joint trial, it has to have the consent of the parties. A Court has the power in an appropriate case to transfer a suit for being tried with another if the circumstances warranted and justified it. In the light of our conclusion that the claim of the company in the suit could be considered to be a claim for set off and a counter claim within the meaning of Section 19 of the Act, the only question is whether in the interests of justice, convenience of parties and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, the suit should be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal for being tried jointly with the application filed by the bank as a cross suit. Obviously, the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal could not be transferred to the civil Court since that is a proceeding before a Tribunal speci