IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah, J.
Appellants: Venkatrao A. Pai and Sons Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Narayanlal Bansilal and Ors.
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 995 of 1960
Decided On: 02.08.1960
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Y.V. Chandrachud and U.R. Lalit, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: K.H. Bhabha, J.P. Mehta, Advs. for F.K. Boman, Beharam and M.K. Shah, Advs. and D.C. Purohit, Adv.
CIVIL PROCEDURE - ORDER 1, RULES 11 AND 12 - CO-PLAINTIFFS - REPRESENTATION BY SEPARATE ADVOCATES - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - TRADITIONS AND CONVENTIONS OF THE COURTS - WASTAGE OF TIME OF THE COURT - MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS - CONFLICT OF INTEREST - CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANTS AND THEIR WITNESSES - POWER OF THE COURT TO DIRECT ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE CASE - HEALTHY TRADITIONS OF THE COURTS TO BE UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, defendant No. 7 in a suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the Small Causes Court, challenged an order passed by the Small Causes Court permitting the two respondents individually to be represented by two separate advocates and also permitting cross-examination of the defendants and their witnesses by each of these advocates.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the practice of one or more counsel appearing for all the co-plaintiffs in a suit jointly and not severally both in India and England has been so uniform and confirmed that there would not be any possibility of any question ever arising of different plaintiffs in one suit being represented by different counsel.
Issues: 1. Whether co-plaintiffs in a suit have an individual right of engaging their own advocate or counsel and conducting the case independently of the other plaintiffs? 2. Whether the court has the power to prevent double cross-examination of the same witnesses at the hands of two different counsel or advocates of the two plaintiffs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the long-standing practice and tradition in both India and England, as well as the case of Wedderburn v. Wedderburn, (1853) 51 ER 993, to hold that co-plaintiffs in a suit must act together and cannot be represented by different counsel. 2. The court held that the court has the power under Order 1, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent double cross-examination of the same witnesses at the hands of two different counsel or advocates of the two plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Small Causes Court permitting the two respondents to be represented by two separate advocates and also permitting cross-examination of the defendants and their witnesses by each of these advocates.
2. The question involved in this application is a very important one and it is as to the validity on otherwise of a long standing practice prevailing both on the Original Side of the High Court as well as on its Appellate Side as also in all the subordinate courts. The question is, whether where more than one person join as co-plaintiffs in a suit, each of the plaintiffs has got an individual right of engaging his own advocate or counsel and conducting the case independently of the other plaintiffs. Mr. Bhabha, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was unable to cite any instance in this High Court on its Original Side, where he has been practising for a long number of years, in which in case of a suit filed by more than one person as co-plaintiffs different counsel were briefed for each of the plaintiffs. It cannot be gainsaid that the traditions and conventions of this High Court have all been inherited from the English Courts of justice.
Mr. Bhabha was unable to point out even a single instance of any case in England in which different counsel were engaged for different plaintiffs who had joined in one suit. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader, Mr. Chandrachud, invited my attention to a very old case Wedderburn v. Wedderburn, (1853) 51 ER 993, decided as far back as in 1853, where the Master of the Rolls observed;
"When persons undertake the prosecutions of a suit they must make up their minds whether they will become co-plaintiffs; for if they do, they must act together. I cannot allow one of several plaintiffs to act separately from and inconsistently with the others."
In fact, I never expected any reported case on this question, because, in my opinion, the practice of one or more counsel appearing for all the co-plaintiffs in a suit jointly and not severally both here and in England has been so uniform and confirmed that there would not be any possibility of any question ever arising of different plaintiffs in one suit being represented by different counsel. The case cited by the learned Government Pleader, however, clears up any difficulty or doubt that might have never existed in regard to this question.
3. It is clear that two or more persons would agree to join as co-plaintiffs in a suit only if there is any common question of law or fact between them, and their respective claims arise out of the same transaction. The law permits these different plaintiffs to join in one action by filing one common plaint only with a view to save multiplicity of suits and consequent wastage of time of the Court. If this is the object of allowing several persons to join as plaintiffs in one action, the object would be frustrated if each of these persons is allowed to be represented by a separate counsel and each one of the counsel is also permitted to be in charge of the case for his own client. I fail to see how, if such things are permitted, the wastage of the time of the Court, which is otherwise intended to be saved by allowing several persons to join together as co-plaintiffs in one action, could at all be saved. On the contrary, far more time would be taken and a number of unnecessary complications would arise in trying one such action if every one of the plaintiffs is allowed to be represented by his own counsel and each counsel is allowed to conduct the case separately for his own client. It may be for this reason that the tradition has taken deep roots both in the courts here as in England that in cases where more persons than one join as co-plaintiffs in one action they should all be jointly represented by one or more counsel. It may be t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.