Misjoinder of parties or causes of action is procedural, so a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

Misjoinder of parties or causes of action is a procedural defect and does not make a plaint barred by law for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Orders I and II permit joinder in appropriate cases and allow the court to regulate proceedings by striking out or adding parties, directing separate trials, or otherwise managing joinder as justice requires. Section 99 also indicates that a decree is not to be reversed merely for misjoinder unless a necessary party is omitted. On the facts, the connected suits arose from related transactions, shared substantially common evidence, and a joint trial had already been directed in companion proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, and whether the suits should be tried jointly.

Analysis: The scheme of Orders I and II of the Code treats objections as to joinder of parties and joinder of causes of action as procedural matters. Order I permits joinder of plaintiffs and defendants, empowers the court to direct election, strike out or add parties, and provides that a suit shall not fail merely for misjoinder or non-joinder. Order II similarly allows joinder of causes of action in appropriate cases and authorises separate trials where convenience so requires. Section 99 reinforces that a decree is not to be reversed merely for misjoinder unless a necessary party is omitted. A suit suffering from misjoinder is therefore not a suit barred by law within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11(d). The court may regulate the trial by ordering separate trials, confining the action, or treating the plaint as comprising separate suits where justice so demands. On the facts, the claims in the three suits arose from related transactions between the same parties, the evidence was substantially common, and a joint trial had already been directed in the connected suits filed by the respondent.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) for misjoinder, and the Division Bench was wrong in directing the plaintiffs to elect one claim or one plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi: Misjoinder of parties or causes of action is a procedural defect and does not constitute a bar to the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the proper course is to regulate joinder through the court's procedural powers, including joint or separate trial as the interests of justice require.

---