When suit should not be dismissed for misjoinder of parties or causes of action?

 Since the suit was dismissed for misjoinder of parties and/or causes of action, it is pertinent to mention here the law on the point which is as under:

Order II Rule 3

Joinder of causes of action-(1) Save as otherwise provided, a Plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly; and any Plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same Defendant or the same Defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.

(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matters at the date of instituting the suit.

Order II Rule 6

Power of Court to order separate trials-Where it appears to the court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the Court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice.

In Black's Law Dictionary it has been stated that the expression 'cause of action' is the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial relief. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the Plaintiff a right to relief against the Defendant. It must include some act done by the Defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.

19. Order II, Rule 3, provides for the joinder of several causes of action and states that a Plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly or several Plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same Defendant or Defendants jointly may unite them in one suit. The remedy for any possible inconvenience with regard to said Rule is supplied by the provisions of Order II, Rule 6, which authorizes the Court to order separate trials of causes of action which though joined in one suit cannot be conveniently tried or disposed of together.

20. Similarly, Order I Rule 1 of the Code permits joinder of more than one persons any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. Order I Rule 2 provides that where it appears to the court that any joinder of Plaintiffs may embarrass or delay the trial of the suit, the court may put the Plaintiffs to their election or order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient.

21. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to a judgment of this Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. MANU/SC/0493/1992 : 1992 (2) SCC 524 wherein it was held as under:

14. It cannot be said that the main object of the Rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the Rule rather than its main objectives. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some questions involved and has thought or relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Appellants even though had different causes of action against the Respondent but it was a continuity of the agreement dated 06.06.2009 and oral agreement is evidenced by the transcript of conversation between the Appellant No. 2 and the Respondent on 6/07.04.2011, therefore, both the Appellants could have joined as Plaintiffs in a suit and the suit is not bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action. Hence, learned single Judge as also the division bench, was not right in giving an option to the Appellants to pursue reliefs qua Appellant No. 1 or qua Appellant No. 2 only.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8837 of 2016

Decided On: 10.04.2017

Hema Khattar and Ors. Vs. Shiv Khera

Print Page

Whether two persons can file one suit for trial of two different causes of action?

 Since the suit was dismissed for misjoinder of parties and/or causes of action, it is pertinent to mention here the law on the point which is as under:

Order II Rule 3

Joinder of causes of action-(1) Save as otherwise provided, a Plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly; and any Plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same Defendant or the same Defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.

(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matters at the date of instituting the suit.

Order II Rule 6

Power of Court to order separate trials-Where it appears to the court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the Court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice.

In Black's Law Dictionary it has been stated that the expression 'cause of action' is the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial relief. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the Plaintiff a right to relief against the Defendant. It must include some act done by the Defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.

19. Order II, Rule 3, provides for the joinder of several causes of action and states that a Plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly or several Plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same Defendant or Defendants jointly may unite them in one suit. The remedy for any possible inconvenience with regard to said Rule is supplied by the provisions of Order II, Rule 6, which authorizes the Court to order separate trials of causes of action which though joined in one suit cannot be conveniently tried or disposed of together.

20. Similarly, Order I Rule 1 of the Code permits joinder of more than one persons any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. Order I Rule 2 provides that where it appears to the court that any joinder of Plaintiffs may embarrass or delay the trial of the suit, the court may put the Plaintiffs to their election or order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient.

21. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to a judgment of this Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. MANU/SC/0493/1992 : 1992 (2) SCC 524 wherein it was held as under:

14. It cannot be said that the main object of the Rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the Rule rather than its main objectives. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some questions involved and has thought or relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Appellants even though had different causes of action against the Respondent but it was a continuity of the agreement dated 06.06.2009 and oral agreement is evidenced by the transcript of conversation between the Appellant No. 2 and the Respondent on 6/07.04.2011, therefore, both the Appellants could have joined as Plaintiffs in a suit and the suit is not bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action. Hence, learned single Judge as also the division bench, was not right in giving an option to the Appellants to pursue reliefs qua Appellant No. 1 or qua Appellant No. 2 only.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8837 of 2016

Decided On: 10.04.2017

 Hema Khattar and Ors. Vs. Shiv Khera

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 7 SCC 769

Print Page

Whether decree can be set aside on account of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties?

 Learned senior counsel, inviting our attention to
Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contends
that no decree shall be reversed or varied
substantially on account of non-joinder or misjoinder
of parties. Section 99 of the Code of Civil
Procedure reads as follows:-
“99. No decree to be reversed or modified
for error or irregularity not affecting
merits or jurisdiction.- No decree shall
be reversed or substantially varied, nor
shall any case be remanded, in appeal on
account of any misjoinder or non-joinder
of parties or causes of action or any
error, defect or irregularity in any

proceedings in the suit, not affecting
the merits of the case or the
jurisdiction of the court:
Provided that nothing in this section
shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary
party.”
5. The provision, in our view, is crystal clear. No
decree can be reversed or substantially varied in
appeal on account of misjoinder or non-joinder of
parties. Under Section 141 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, procedure under the Code in regard to suit
shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable
to proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction.
Therefore, what is provided under Section 99 of the
Code of Civil Procedure in respect of appeal would
apply to revision as well.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2014/2009

MANTI DEVI  Vs  KISHUN SAH @ KISHUN DEO SAO & ORS. 
Dated:MARCH 23, 2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 2002

Print Page

When suit is not bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action?

Since the suit was dismissed for misjoinder of parties
and/or causes of action, it is pertinent to mention here the law
on the point which is as under:-
Order II Rule 3
“Joinder of causes of action – (1) Save as otherwise
provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several
causes of action against the same defendant, or the same
defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action
in which they are jointly interested against the same
defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such
causes of action in the same suit.
(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of
the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or
value of the aggregate subject matters at the date of
instituting the suit.”
Order II Rule 6
“Power of Court to order separate trials – Where it appears
to the court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit
may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise
inconvenient, the Court may order separate trials or make
such other order as may be expedient in the interests of
justice.”

In Black's Law Dictionary it has been stated that the
expression ‘cause of action’ is the fact or facts which give a
person a right to judicial relief. A cause of action, thus, means
every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of
the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken
with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to
relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by
the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of
action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual
infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material
facts on which it is founded.
19) Order II, Rule 3, provides for the joinder of several causes
of action and states that a plaintiff may unite in the same suit
several causes of action against the same defendant, or the
same defendants jointly or several plaintiffs having causes of
action in which they are jointly interested against the same
defendant or defendants jointly may unite them in one suit.
The remedy for any possible inconvenience with regard to said
rule is supplied by the provisions of Order II, Rule 6, which

authorizes the Court to order separate trials of causes of
action which though joined in one suit cannot be conveniently
tried or disposed of together.
20) Similarly, Order I Rule 1 of the Code permits joinder of
more than one persons any right to relief in respect of, or
arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or
transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether
jointly, severally or in the alternative; and if such persons
brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact
would arise. Order I Rule 2 provides that where it appears to
the court that any joinder of plaintiffs may embarrass or delay
the trial of the suit, the court may put the plaintiffs to their
election or order separate trials or make such other order as
may be expedient.
21) In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to a judgment of
this Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others 1992 (2) SCC
524 wherein it was held as under:-
“14. It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent
multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect.
But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather

than its main objectives. The person to be joined must be one
whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a
necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give
on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a
necessary witness . It is not merely that he has an interest in the
correct solution of some questions involved and has thought or
relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it
necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should
be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled,
therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be
effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.”
22) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion
that the appellants even though had different causes of action
against the respondent but it was a continuity of the
agreement dated 06.06.2009 and oral agreement is evidenced
by the transcript of conversation between the appellant No. 2
and the respondent on 6/07.04.2011, therefore, both the
appellants could have joined as plaintiffs in a suit and the suitis not bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action.
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8837 OF 2016
Mrs. Hema Khattar & Anr.
V
Shiv Khera 
Dated:APRIL 10, 2017.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1793

Print Page

Whether suit defective for misjoinder of parties or causes of action can be consolidated?

  It cannot be disputed that the court has power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are by order of the Court combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 37, paragraph 69). If there is power in the court to consolidate different suits on the basis that it should be desirable to make an order consolidating them or on the basis that some common questions of law or fact arise for decision in them, it cannot certainly be postulated that the trying of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is something that is barred by law. The power to consolidate recognised in the court obviously gives rise to the position that mere misjoinder of parties or causes of action is not something that creates an obstruction even at the threshold for the entertaining of the suit.

Supreme Court of India

Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria on 2 February, 2007

Print Page