Joinder of defendants upheld where claims arose from the same transaction and a common factual issue in contract breach.
Joinder of defendants was found permissible where the claim for damages arose from the same breach of contract and the alleged conspiracy to procure that breach. The Court applied Order 1, Rule 3 CPC on the basis that the right to relief arose out of the same transaction or series of acts, the defendants were said to be liable jointly, severally or alternatively, and a substantial common question of fact, namely the breach, would arise even in separate suits. Order 2, Rule 3 did not bar joinder where Order 1, Rule 3 was satisfied, and objections of embarrassment or inconvenience were rejected on the facts because joinder avoided multiplicity of proceedings.
Issues: Whether the plaint could validly join the original defendant and the added defendants in one suit, and whether such joinder was barred as a misjoinder of parties or causes of action.
Analysis: The relief claimed was damages arising out of the same breach of contract and the attendant allegation of conspiracy to procure that breach. The Court held that the suit satisfied the requirements of Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the right to relief arose out of the same act or series of acts or transactions, the defendants were claimed to be liable jointly, severally or in the alternative, and a common question of fact, namely the breach of contract, would arise even in separate suits. The Court further held that Order 2, Rule 3 did not defeat the joinder, since the Code permits joinder of different causes of action against different defendants where Order 1, Rule 3 is complied with. The objections of embarrassment or inconvenience were rejected on the special facts, as the issues were substantially common and the joinder avoided multiplicity of proceedings.
Conclusion: The joinder of the added defendants in the same suit was permissible and there was no misjoinder warranting their striking out.
Final Conclusion: The rule was discharged and the suit was allowed to proceed with all defendants joined.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the claim against multiple defendants arises from the same transaction and at least one substantial common question of fact must be determined, Order 1, Rule 3 permits joinder of defendants even if the precise cause of action or legal basis of liability differs among them, and Order 2, Rule 3 does not override that permission.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
