Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 06-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant S. Selvakumar, proprietor of M/s Selvarangam Hospital, filed petition A No.1512 of 2026 against six respondents – Dr. A.B. Selvarangan (deceased), S. Balasubramani, V.S. Velayutham, S. Savithri, B. Srilekha, and Mrs. Rajalakshmi – seeking to delink Civil Suit No.410 of 2018 from Civil Suit No.521 of 2018.
  • Legal Basis: Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  • Background: Earlier orders (09.09.2020) directed joint trial of CS Nos.410, 645 and 521 of 2018. Subsequent orders delinked CS No.645 (21.08.2023), did not delink 410 from 521 (06.03.2025), and directed separate serial listing for administrative convenience (07.06.2024). The most recent order (12.02.2026) again directed a joint trial of CS Nos.410 and 521.
  • Applicant’s Argument: The two suits concern different properties, parties, causes of action and reliefs; a joint trial would enlarge the scope of proceedings and cause further delay.
  • Respondents’ Argument: Prior orders already directed joint trial; there is no change in circumstances or error; the suits are connected as they arise from the same family dispute; the application is intended to delay the trial.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The court reiterated the procedural history, noting the joint trial direction of 12.02.2026 was merely a case‑management direction, not a substantive adjudication.

2. Citing Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85, the court emphasized that consolidation is warranted only when suits arise from substantially the same transactions, involve common issues, and require substantially the same evidence.

3. CS No.410 of 2018: A suit for permanent injunction restraining interference with the plaintiff’s possession and operation of Selvarangam Hospital at the premises described in its schedule.

4. CS No.521 of 2018: Concerns a different property at E‑51, 3rd Street, Anna Nagar East, seeking recovery of possession, past and future damages for use and occupation, and an injunction against alienation or encumbrance. The parties are also not identical.

5. The comparative statement filed by defendants 3 to 5 confirms the distinct properties and reliefs.

6. The material evidence required in the two suits is substantially different; there is no real likelihood of conflicting decrees.

7. A joint trial would compel parties not common to both suits to engage with evidence unrelated to them, impeding expeditious disposal.

8. The direction dated 12.02.2026 did not adjudicate any substantive right and may be modified when its continuation defeats its purpose.

9. Consequently, compelling a joint trial merely because the litigants belong to the same family would cause avoidable delay and would not serve the ends of justice.

Final Outcome

  • The application A No.1512 of 2026 is allowed.
  • Order: (i) CS No.410 of 2018 shall stand delinked from CS No.521 of 2018 and shall proceed independently; (ii) the Registry shall list CS No.410 separately before the appropriate learned Master for recording of evidence, without awaiting the progress of CS No.521; (iii) the learned Master shall endeavour to complete the recording of evidence in CS No.410 as expeditiously as possible; (iv) there shall be no order as to costs; (v) the connected applications shall be listed separately in the suit to which they relate.

Topics: Court Order, Civil Litigation, Property Dispute