De-linked suits need not await simultaneous judgments where consolidation causes undue delay.

The petitioner, defendant No. 3(b) in O.S. No. 598/1999, challenged the trial court’s rejection of his application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking simultaneous judgments in that suit and O.S. Nos. 660/2008, 730/2008 and 533/2010.

The suits had initially been clubbed for common evidence and disposal by a common judgment, but were de-linked by an order dated 28 March 2022.

The petitioner argued that simultaneous judgments were necessary to avoid conflicting findings; the second respondent submitted that only PW.1’s evidence had been recorded in common in two suits and that the present application would delay judgment in O.S. No. 598/1999.

In that suit, the evidence was complete, the plaintiff’s arguments had concluded, and the defendants’ arguments remained to be heard; the later suits were at different stages.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the trial court’s refusal to direct simultaneous pronouncement of judgments in the four suits.

Whether the suits’ earlier consolidation for common evidence and disposal required them to be decided simultaneously, notwithstanding their subsequent de-linking and differing stages of progress.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the underlying application was made under Section 151 CPC.

The judgment cites no statutory provision or precedent as establishing a specific requirement that suits once clubbed must invariably receive simultaneous judgments.

Its reasoning reflects that the trial court may manage connected proceedings in light of their progress and the need to avoid undue delay; where the suits remain before the same court, that court can consider the parties’ assistance and the findings in the other proceedings when deciding the remaining suits.

The High Court considered that the purpose of clubbing the suits had not been achieved: the parties had not assisted in completing evidence in the other suits despite the passage of three years, while O.S. No. 598/1999 had been pending for more than 27 years and was ready for defendants’ arguments.

Since the same trial court would hear the remaining suits and could take account of the parties’ submissions to avoid inconsistent findings, simultaneous pronouncement was not necessary to protect the parties’ interests.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s request substantially sought the same relief as the earlier de-linking order.

It requested the trial court to avoid unnecessary adjournments, consider hearing the matter weekly if necessary, and endeavour to pronounce judgment at the earliest.