https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310529 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. en-us Fri, 02 Jun 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Oct 2023 12:48:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310529 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Jun 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310529