Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shishir Khare vs Vishandas Parwani on 20 December, 2014
CR. No. 475/2014
20/12/2014
Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the
applicants/defendants.
Shri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.
1 to 3.
None for the respondent No. 4.
The applicants/defendants have filed this civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 200914 passed by the Court of IX th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 17A/14 dismissing an application filed by the applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejecting the suit on the ground of misjoinder of cause of actions and misjoinder of plaintiffs in the suit. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court holding that the objections raised by the defendants do not come in the purview of the order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
Heard on the question of admission.
Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants inviting the attention to the Para 19 to 22 of the plaint has submitted that the various transactions made between the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 and the defendant No. 1 & 2 similarly between the plaintiff No. 3 and defendant No. 3 on different dates for which separate suits should have been filed by the plaintiff No. 1, 2 & 3 as the relief claimed by them against the applicants/defendants are distinct. The plaintiffs have filed a joint suit malafidely to save the payment of court fees separately. In the said circumstances the instant suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable as per provisions of Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 2 Rule 7 of CPC. However, the learned trial Court has committed error in dismissing the application.
The learned counsel for the respondents opposing the submissions has pleaded that the impugned order being well merited does not require to be interfered with.
On perusal of the impugned order and the application Annexure A2 filed by the applicants/defendants before the trial Court Under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and the copy of plaint it is inferred that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application because the written statement has not been filed by the applicants/defendants before the trial Court. The objections raised by the applicants/defendants in the I.A. No. 2 does not primafacie come in the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, if there is any misjoinder of cause of action or misjoinder of plaintiffs in the suits, the same cannot be dismissed on the threshold because no provision has been made in the Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 2 Rule 7 of the CPC that if the misjoinder of cause of action and or parties is made in the plaint the same be barred by any specific provision of law.
In keeping the aforesaid circumstances, this revision filed by the applicants/defendants is meritless. Therefore, the applicants/ defendants are directed to file written statement before the trial Court thereafter the issues shall be framed by the same and the question raised by the applicants/defendants shall be considered as preliminary issues.
With the aforesaid directions the revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
(M.K.Mudgal ) Judge MOHSIN/