1950 (6) TMI 18 - HC - Indian Laws

Amendment to Add Defendants Permitted Under Order 1, Rule 3 CPC for Breach of Contract and Conspiracy Case

Shew Narayan Singh Versus Brahmanand Singh and Ors.

The HC concluded that the amendment to add new defendants was permissible under Order 1, Rule 3 of the CPC, as the claims arose from the same series of ... - Issues Involved:1. Amendment of the plaint to add new defendants.2. Allegation of misjoinder of parties and causes of action.3. Applicability and interpretation of Order 1, Rule 3, and Order 2, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).4. Impact of joinder on the defendants and potential harassment or vexation.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Amendment of the Plaint to Add New Defendants:The plaintiff initially sued Ram Narain Singh for breach of contract, alleging non-performance of an agreement to supply bricks in exchange for coal. Upon discovering a conspiracy involving additional parties (Bindeswari Singh, Hazari Singh, Rajen Singh, and Thakur Shew Narayan), the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include these individuals as defendants. The Subordinate Judge initially rejected this application, but the High Court allowed the amendment ex parte. The added defendants then sought to have their names expunged, which was again denied by the Subordinate Judge. The present rule was obtained by Thakur Shew Narayan to strike out the names of the added defendants.2. Allegation of Misjoinder of Parties and Causes of Action:The petitioner argued that the amendment and addition of parties resulted in a misjoinder, as the claims against Ram Narain Singh were for breach of contract, while the claims against the other defendants were for damages due to conspiracy, thus involving different causes of action. The petitioner cited Order 2, Rule 3 of the CPC, which allows joinder of causes of action against the same defendant or jointly against multiple defendants, but not for different causes of action against different defendants.3. Applicability and Interpretation of Order 1, Rule 3, and Order 2, Rule 3 of the CPC:The plaintiff contended that the joinder was permissible under Order 1, Rule 3, which allows multiple defendants to be joined in a suit if the right to relief arises out of the same act or series of transactions, and if common questions of law or fact would arise if separate suits were brought. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the breach of contract and the conspiracy to cause the breach constituted a series of transactions. The court emphasized that the relief sought (damages) was based on the breach of contract, which was common to all defendants, thus satisfying the requirements of Order 1, Rule 3.4. Impact of Joinder on the Defendants and Potential Harassment or Vexation:The court acknowledged that Order 1, Rule 3 is permissive and should not be applied if it causes embarrassment or injustice to the parties. However, in this case, the court found that all defendants had a vested interest in disproving the breach of contract, which was central to the plaintiff's claim. The court noted that the presence of all defendants throughout the trial was necessary and convenient, as the issues of breach and conspiracy were intertwined. The court also referenced Order 1, Rule 5, which allows for the joinder of defendants even if the claims against them differ in extent or nature, as long as the provisions of Order 1, Rule 3 are met.Conclusion:The court concluded that the suit was properly framed and did not involve a misjoinder of parties or causes of action. The court held that the joinder of the new defendants was permissible under Order 1, Rule 3, as the right to relief arose from the same series of transactions, and common questions of law or fact would arise in separate suits. The rule was discharged, and the suit was allowed to proceed with the added defendants.