A suit is not bad for misjoinder of causes of action if the rights to relief arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, if at least one common question of law or fact will arise if separate suits are filed, and if all the plaintiffs are jointly interested in all the different causes of action.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been preferred against the order No. 119 dated 19. 4. 1999 passed by the learned 9th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore in Title Suit No. 49 of 1990 whereby the learned Court decided the issue Nos. 9 and 5 in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the sole defendant of Title Suit No. 49 of 1990. The opposite parties filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner/defendant alleging that the defendant executed 3 agreements for sale in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and their mother since deceased on 16. 12. 89. By those 3 agreements the defendant agreed to sale the undivided one third share of 9 cottahs of land at premises No. 77/1 Hazra Road, Cal-29 in favour of each of the three persons being Smt. Gouribala Das, Ashis Kumar Das and Abish Kumar Das at a total sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- and each of them was to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. It was further agreed that each of the purchasers was to pay Rs. 75,000/- as earnest money and accordingly all the three purchasers paid a total amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the defendant. The agreements were cancelled by the defendant on 4. 6. 90 and the earnest money received by her was also forfeited on grounds common to at all. On 23. 3. 90 Smt. Gouribala Das, the mother of the plaintiffs died. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the aforesaid Title suit on 31. 10. 90 for specific performance of contract. Pursuant to the revisional application filed by the defendant this High Court directed the learned Court below to decide the issue Nos. 9 and 5 at the preliminary stage. The issue No. 9 reads thus, "is the suit bad for misjoinder of causes of action?" and issue No. 5 was framed on the point, "whether the suit is properly valued and correctly stamped?"

( 3 ) THE learned Judge disposed of issue No. 9 by holding,"i am of the humble opinion and accordingly, hold that right to relief in the instant suit arises out of the transaction by way of execution of agreements for sale on the same date which arose against the sole defendant. The common question does arise in the instant suit. It would also appear from the facts disclosed in the plaint that alleged cancellation of the agreement were on the same date i. e. on 12. 6. 90. The suit property is the same. The case arises out of the similar nature of agreement in three sets in respect of 1/3 rd share each of undivided suit property as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. The earnest money of Rs. 75,000/- paid for the purchase of the suit property in respect of each of three agreements for sale and the total consideration for the purchase of entire suit property amounts to Rs. 9 lacs. Relief as prayed in the plaint is the same as against the sole defendant. With an object to avoid multiplicity of the suits, I am of the considered view that the suit is not bad for mis-joinder of causes of action. "

( 4 ) IN order that several plaintiffs may join different causes of action in one suit against one defendant, the following conditions must co-exist :- (I)the rights to relief must arise out of the same transaction or series of translations; (ii)at least one common question of law or fact will arise if separate suits are filed; and (iii)all the plaintiffs must be jointly interested in all the different causes of action. (Order 1, rule 1 read with order 2, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 as explained in Mulla's Key to Indian Practice, 7th edition, at page 43.)

( 5 ) MR. Mukherjee, appearing for the petitioner has argued that even the first condition has not been satisfied in this case inasmuch as the rights to specific performance prayed for by four plaintiffs arise allegedly out of three separate agreements to which plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are neither parties nor privies. The fact that the agreements were executed on the same day with the same object of settling the defendant's earlier eviction suit against the plaintiff Nos. 1