Prem Lala Nahata Vs Chandi Prasad Simaria: A Plaint With Defects Of Misjoinder Of Parties Or Misjoinder Of Causes Of Action Cannot Be Barred By Law

Bench:
S.B. Sinha, P.K. Balasubramanyan

Petitioner:
Prem Lala Nahata

Respondent:
Chandi Prasad Sikaria

Issue

Whether a plaint with defects of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action is barred by Law?

Can a plaint having defects of misjoinder of causes of action be tried jointly?

Facts

• Appellants are mother and daughter who gave a loan of Rs 5 Lakhs each to the respondent who they met through the husband and father, respectively, of the Appellants.
• The respondent didn’t pay back and now the appellants want their entire money back along with interest, that is, Rs. 10,93,863/- and Rs.10,90,849/- respectively.
• The appellants had registered their individual grievances as a joint case.
• The respondent claimed that as they were separate cases, a joint trial should not be allowed as there are different causes of action.

Appellant’s contentions

• The appellants contended that the respondent has no intention to give their money back.
• The appellants then registered their cases separately, and appealed to the Calcutta High Court claiming that they don’t need separate trials as they both came to know the respondent through the head of the family.

Respondent’s contentions

• The respondent claimed that he didn’t take a loan from the appellants, rather it was a business transaction.
• The respondent stated that these are separate cases, thus trying them together is barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Relevant Paragraphs (Paragraph Numbers 11, 13, and 16 of the Original Judgement)

1. According to Rules 3A, 4, and 5 of Order I of the Code, a case where a plaint suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action either in terms of Order I Rule 1 and Order I Rule 3 on the one hand, or Order II Rule 3 on the other, such defect does not make the suit barred by law or liable to rejection. Also, Rule 9 of Order I provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of non- joinder or misjoinder of parties.
2. The objection of misjoinder of plaintiffs or misjoinder of causes of action is a procedural objection, and it is not a bar to the entertaining of the suit or the trial and final disposal of the suit.
3. With respect to the conduct of proceeding where there has been a joinder of causes of action or of parties which may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the court may either order separate trials of the claims in respect of two or more causes of action included in the same action or confine the action to some of the causes of action and exclude the others or order the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect which cause of action is to be proceeded with or make such other order as may be expedient. Thus, the Court's power in this regard is wide.

Final decision

The Calcutta High Court stated that all the three cases should be joined together, irrespective of defects of misjoinder. It held that a plaint with defects of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action cannot be barred by law.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement