Misjoinder of parties or causes of action does not warrant the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of defendants in a money suit and is directed against Order no. 17 dated May 7, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 3rd Court, alipore in Money Suit No. 15 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application under order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure ("code") for rejection of the plaint.

( 2 ) TWO plaintiffs (the plaintiff No. 1 being the husband of the plaintiff No. 2) filed the aforesaid money suit against the School Authorities for recovery of their retirement benefits as employees of the School. There is no dispute that the plaintiff No. 1 retired as a Superintendent of Boys' Home and the plaintiff no. 2, as the Headmistress of the School. In the plaint they have made two separate schedules disclosing their separate dues and in paragraph 25 of the plaint, the specific averments are made that the respective right to relief had arisen out of the series of acts and transactions wherein the plaintiffs were jointly and separately involved and if the plaintiffs brought separate suits, common question of law and fact would have arisen. It is further stated that above and beyond, the plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendants, they are free to unite those causes of action against the defendants jointly.

( 3 ) AFTER entering appearance in the suit, the School Authorities filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code on the ground that the two plaintiffs having been undisputedly employed by virtue of two different contracts, the causes of action of two plaintiffs were entirely different and as such, the suit was bad for misjoinder of plaintiffs as well as of causes of action. In other words, according to the defendants, the suit was bad for multifariousness.

( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge, by the order impugned herein, has dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the alleged defects pointed out by the defendants did not come within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code. The Trial Judge further held that any question relating to maintainability as regards framing of the suit would be a question of law and fact and the same can be adjudicated finally only upon taking evidence and not at that stage. The Court also held that prima facie, the plaintiffs being employees under the same organization, the suit as framed was maintainable.

( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the defendants have come up with the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) MR. Sen, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assails the order impugned on the ground that if it appears on the basis of averments made in the plaint that the suit has been filed in contravention of the provisions contained in Order 1 or Order 2 of the Code, the Court should give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to remove the defects and if the plaintiffs do not cure such defects in spite of giving opportunity, the plaint should be rejected. In support of such contentions, Mr. Sen relies upon an unreported decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Margo Trading and Six Ors. vs. Om credit Private Limited, dated October 30, 1995, in Suit No 242 of 1995.

( 7 ) THE aforesaid contention of Mr. Sen has been seriously disputed by Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr. Mukherjee contends that the objection as regards misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action cannot come within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code, as rightly pointed out by the learned Trial Judge. According to Mr. Mukherjee, even if the Court finds that a suit is bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of actions, the suit cannot be dismissed nor can the plaint be rejected. Mr. Mukherjee submits that at any rate, no question of re