2008 (3) TMI 790 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Orders Separate Trials for Misjoined Property Claims; Plaintiffs Can Amend or File New Suit.

The court addressed the propriety of an order by the Small Causes Judge at Sealdah and the objection to misjoinder of causes of action. The defendant's ... - Issues involved:1. Propriety of the order dated 14th November, 2006 passed by the Learned Small Causes Judge at Sealdah in T.S. No. 22 of 2006.2. Challenge to the rejection of the petitioner's objection regarding misjoinder of causes of action in the suit.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The judgment concerns the challenge to the order dated 14th November, 2006, passed by the Learned Small Causes Judge at Sealdah in T.S. No. 22 of 2006. The Revisional Application questions the propriety of this order at the instance of the defendant/petitioner.Issue 2: The primary issue in this case revolves around the rejection of the petitioner's objection regarding the misjoinder of causes of action in the suit. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant/petitioner seeking various reliefs related to two separate properties, 'A' schedule property and 'B' schedule property. The plaintiffs claimed absolute right, title, and interest in the 'A' schedule property and sought recovery of possession from the petitioner. Additionally, they claimed a share in the 'B' schedule property and requested partition of the same.The defendant/petitioner objected to the misjoinder of causes of action in the suit, arguing that different reliefs related to distinct properties were improperly joined in a single suit. The Trial Judge, however, upheld the joinder of causes of action, citing Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Judge also considered the previous direction to accept the petitioner's written statement, which addressed all claims made by the plaintiffs.Both parties cited legal precedents to support their arguments. The petitioner relied on cases like Balasundara Mudaliar v. Muthuvenkatachala Mudaliar, emphasizing the impropriety of joining multifarious causes of action. Conversely, the plaintiffs' counsel cited cases like S.M. Gopalakrishna Chetty v. Ganeshan, asserting that the joinder of causes of action was permissible under relevant civil procedure rules.The Court analyzed the legal provisions, specifically Order II Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which restricts the joinder of causes of action without the Court's leave, especially when seeking relief for partition of distinct properties. The Court concluded that the relief for partition of the 'B' schedule property could not be claimed against the petitioner in a suit primarily focused on recovering possession of the 'A' schedule property.Ultimately, the Court held that separate trials for the distinct causes of action would be expedient in the interest of justice. The plaintiffs were granted leave to choose which cause of action to pursue, with directions for amending the plaint accordingly. If no action was taken by the plaintiffs, the Trial Judge was instructed to strike out the partition claim from the plaint, allowing the plaintiffs to file a separate suit for partition if desired.In conclusion, the Revisional Application was disposed of with the above observations, emphasizing the need for separate trials for distinct causes of action and ensuring the proper pursuit of legal remedies in accordance with the law.