Suits involving identical parties and property must be jointly tried to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

Respondents 14 and 15 instituted O.S. No. 649 of 2012 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem, seeking declaration and injunction concerning the suit property. Respondents 3 to 13 subsequently instituted O.S. No. 203 of 2016 before the II Additional District Judge, Salem, against the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2, also seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the same property.

The petitioners filed Tr.O.P. No. 44 of 2026 before the Principal District Judge, Salem, seeking transfer of O.S. No. 649 of 2012 so that it could be tried along with O.S. No. 203 of 2016. The transfer application was dismissed principally because the two suits were at different procedural stages: O.S. No. 649 of 2012 was at the stage of examination of DW1, whereas O.S. No. 203 of 2016 was at the stage of examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses.

The High Court also noted that the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 649 of 2012 had earlier filed Tr.O.P. No. 191 of 2023 seeking a similar transfer, but that petition was dismissed for default on 16 April 2024.

Whether O.S. No. 649 of 2012 and O.S. No. 203 of 2016, involving the same parties and the same suit property, ought to be transferred and tried jointly to avoid conflicting findings and multiplicity of proceedings?

Whether the different procedural stages of the two suits justified refusing the requested transfer?

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the correctness of the order passed in the transfer proceedings.

The governing procedural principle applied was that where two suits involve substantially the same parties and the same subject matter, they should ordinarily be tried by the same Court, and, where appropriate, jointly, in order to avoid conflicting judgments and multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court treated the difference in the procedural stages of the suits as insufficient, by itself, to outweigh the need for a consistent adjudication of disputes relating to the same property.

The High Court found that the parties in the two suits were the same or substantially overlapping and that both suits concerned the same suit property.

Consequently, separate trials created a real possibility of inconsistent findings and further litigation. Although the Court below had relied on the different stages of the suits in declining transfer, the High Court held that procedural disparity did not justify allowing parallel adjudication of connected disputes.

The Court further considered it significant that the plaintiffs themselves had previously sought transfer through Tr.O.P. No. 191 of 2023, although they opposed the petitioners’ subsequent transfer application.

Applying the principle that connected suits involving the same property should be tried by one Court, the High Court concluded that transfer was necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

O.S. No. 649 of 2012 was withdrawn from the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem, and transferred to the II Additional District Judge, Salem, to be tried jointly with O.S. No. 203 of 2016.

The transfer was directed to be completed within four weeks of receipt of the High Court’s order, and the II Additional District Judge was directed to dispose of both suits within nine months thereafter. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.