Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Murali Shankar, J
Naaz Iqbal – Appellant
Versus
Baima Akbar – Respondent
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.45 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Manohar
For the Respondents: M. Mohamed Ajees Dheen
When two suits involving the same parties and subject matter are pending in different courts, the High Court may order the transfer of one suit to the other to ensure consistency, prevent conflicting findings, and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, leaving the decision for joint trial to the transferee court.
Headnote:The case involves a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the transfer and consolidation of two suits between family members concerning identical properties. The petitioner sought the transfer of a suit for permanent injunction to the court where a partition suit was pending to minimize litigation and prevent conflicting findings. The court determined that as the parties and properties in both suits overlapped significantly, the transfer of the file was appropriate to promote judicial economy. The central issue was whether the interests of justice warranted the transfer of one suit to be heard alongside another suit pending in a different court. The ratio decidendi highlights that where suits involve the same subject matter and parties, transferring them to a single forum prevents the risk of inconsistent judicial pronouncements and avoids unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings, though the decision on whether to consolidate them for joint trial remains with the transferee court. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the transfer application and the nature of the pending suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the necessity for transfer versus claims of harassment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's discretion to transfer based on identity of parties and subject matter. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final order granting the transfer and directing procedural compliance. (Para 10 , 11) |
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.45 of 2026
1.Naaz Iqbal
2.Iqbal Anver ... Petitioners Vs.
Baima Akbar ... Respondent Prayer : This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 C.P.C., to withdraw O.S.No.249 of 2025, on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town and transfer it to the file of VI Additional District Judge, Madurai to be tried along with O.S.No.325 of 2025 For Petitioners : Mr.S.Manohar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Ajees Dheen
ORDER
The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case in O.S.No.249 of 2025, on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town and transfer it to the file of VI Additional District Judge, Madurai to be tried along with O.S.No.325 of 2025
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. It is not in dispute that the respondent filed a suit in O.S.NO.249 of 2025 seeking permanent injunction and the same is pending on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. It is also not in dispute that the first petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.325 of 2025, claiming partition and other reliefs and the same is pending on the file of VI Additional District Court. Madurai.
4. The case of the petitioners is that if the properties involved in both the suits are one and the same and the suits are not tried jointly, there is every possibility of conflicting findings being rendered by the Courts.
According to the petitioners, a joint trial would not only minimize the recording of evidence, but would also avoid multiplicity of proceedings and serve the interest of justice. It is their further case that if O.S.No.249 of 2025 is tried separately, prejudice and complications may arise, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the transfer is ordered.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent has filed a suit for bare injunction and the same has no connection whatever with the cause of action pleaded and the reliefs claimed in the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.325 of 2025, that no joint trial can be conducted in the above suits and that the above petition has been filed only to harass the respondent and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Admittedly the first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner and the respondent is the mother of the first petitioner. The first petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.325 of 2025 against the respondent – mother and her brothers and the tenants in respect of the suit property therein claiming partition and allotment of 1/8 share in the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining her brothers and their men from alienating the suit properties and also for permanent injunction restraining the tenants from paying rents to her brothers in respect of items 1 and 2 of the suit properties. The respondent – mother filed a suit against her daughter – first petitioner and her husband – second petitioner in O.S.No. 249 of 2023 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and the said relief is extracted hereunder for better appreciation:
“ (a) to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant or her men or agent or persons claiming through her from encumbering the suit properties to third parties ignoring the possession and control by the plaintiff until registered partition has been effected among the legal heirs of Late.Akbar Omar pertaining the properties left by the plaintiff's husband Late.Akbar Omar in the suit properties;
(b) to gr
