The court emphasized that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is not one that could be rejected by a defendant as a matter of right. The court has the discretion to proceed with the suit, direct the plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the suit, or try the causes of action joined in the suit as separate suits. The court also has the power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases.

P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted. The appellants are the plaintiffs in C. S. No. 29 of 2003 filed on the original side of the Calcutta High Court. They are mother and daughter. They together sued the respondent, the defendant, for recovery of sums allegedly due to them from him. Appellant No. 1 sought recovery of a sum of rs. 10,93,863/- with interest thereon and appellant No. 2 sought recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,90,849/- with interest. Their claims were based on transactions they allegedly had with the respondent herein, through Mahendra Kumar Nahata, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2. In essence, the claim of appellant No. 1 was that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs had been lent by her to the respondent and the same had not been repaid and the same was liable to be repaid with interest and damages. The case of appellant No. 2 was also that she had lent a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent and the same along with interest and damages was due to her. It was their case that the transactions had been entered into through Mahendra Kumar nahata, and that through Nahata, they have had prior dealings with the respondent. They had averred thus in paragraph 4 of the plaint:

"the said Nahata in his usual course of business was known to the Defendant for many years and sometime in April, 2000 while acting on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the said Nahata at the request of Defendant had duly arranged for two loans of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be lent and advanced by each of the plaintiffs to the Defendant and this Suit has been brought to recover the said loans with interest and special damages arising from the Defendant's failure to repay the said loans within the stipulated date therefor as is stated more-fully hereinafter. "

The respondent not having, repaid the money and having repudiated their claim by filing suits against them, the suit for recovery of the amounts was being filed.

( 2 ) THE respondent had earlier filed two suits for recovery of amounts allegedly due from the appellants. Money Suit No. 585 of 2001 was instituted by the respondent against appellant No. 2 herein claiming recovery of certain amounts after setting off the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs taken from appellant No. 2. He had accepted that Rs. 5 lakhs had been paid by the appellant but pleaded that it was not a loan, but it was as part of a business transaction set out in that plaint. The respondent had also filed Money Suit No. 69 of 2002 against appellant No. 1 herein for recovery of certain amounts on the same basis and after setting off the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs alleged to have been paid by her. The suits were filed in the City Civil Court at calcutta. The said suits were pending when the appellants together instituted their suit c. S. No. 29 of 2003. Their suit, as noticed, was on the basis that the sums of Rs. 5,00,000/- each paid by them to the respondent were by way of loans.

( 3 ) THE appellants moved A. L. P. No. 10 of 2003 on the original side of the Calcutta high Court invoking clause 13 of the letters Patent read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code")seeking withdrawal of Money Suit No. 585 of 2001 and Money Suit No. 69 of 2002 for being tried with C. S. No. 29 of 2003 on the plea that common questions of fact and law arise in the suits and it would be in the interests of justice to try and dispose of the three suits together. Though the respondent resisted the application, the court took the view that it would be appropriate in the interests of justice to transfer the two suits pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta to the original side of the High Court for being tried and disposed of along with C. S. No. 29 of 2003 filed by the appellants. The said order fqr withdrawal and joint trial became final.

( 4 ) WHILE matters stood thus, the respondent herein, the defendant in C. S. No. 29 of 2003, made an application G. A. No. 4458 of 2003 praying that the plaint in C. S. No. 29 of 2003 be rejected under Or