Back
2005 Supreme(Cal) 347
High Court Of Calcutta
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSH, P. N. SINHA
CHANDI PRASAD SIKARIA - Appellant
Versus
PREMLATA NAHATA - Respondent
G. A. 4458 Of 2003
Decided On : 05/19/2005
An order rejecting an application to dismiss a suit on the ground of multifariousness is appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent if it affects a valuable right of the appellant.
Headnote:
MULTIFARIOUSNESS - JOINDER OF PARTIES AND CAUSES OF ACTION - APPEALABILITY OF ORDER: 1. A suit is bad for multifariousness if it combines several suits in one action and does not allow the joinder of several plaintiffs having independent causes of action against one defendant. 2. An order rejecting an application to dismiss a suit on the ground of multifariousness is appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent if it affects a valuable right of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/petitioner (defendant) filed an appeal against an order rejecting his application to dismiss the suit on the ground of multifariousness and bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action. The respondents (plaintiffs) had filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of money lent and advanced, and for damages for non-payment of interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action, as the causes of action of the plaintiffs were separate and independent, and that the order rejecting the appellant's application was appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as it affected a valuable right of the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was bad for multifariousness and misjoinder of parties and causes of action? 2. Whether the order rejecting the appellant's application was appealable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was bad for multifariousness as it combined several suits in one action and did not allow the joinder of several plaintiffs having independent causes of action against one defendant. 2. The court held that the order rejecting the appellant's application was appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as it affected a valuable right of the appellant, namely, the right to have the suit dismissed on the ground of multifariousness.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the lower court, and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed from an order dated June 16, 2004 rejecting the application of the appellant/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as C. P. C.)
( 2 ) IT appears from the facts that the appellant/petitioner applied before the Hon'ble First Court for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit is barred on the ground of multifariousness and bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action.
( 3 ) IT appears from the facts that the instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) and the plaintiff No. 1 pleaded that the appellant/petitioner (the defendant) is a registered stock broker of the calcutta Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the CSE) and also a registered broker with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as the SEBI ). The respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 1) at the request of the appellant/petitioner (defendant) lent and advanced from time to time during 19th April, 1999 and 14th February, 2000 aggregating a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. It is pleaded that the said loan was granted through one Mahendra kumar Nahata (hereinafter referred to as the said Nahata) being the husband of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 1 ). The appellant/petitioner (defendant)duly repaid the said loan to the plaintiff No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein ). Thereafter the petitioner/appellant again approached the said Nahata and at the instance of the said Nahata, the respondent No. 1 on 7th April, 2000 duly issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in favour of M/s. C. P. Sikaria and Co. and the appellant/petitioner herein duly deposited the same in the personal account and encashed the same. The appellant/petitioner failed to pay any interest on the said loan as agreed upon between the parties and further inspite of the demand failed to repay the same. For non-payment of the said loan and interest thereon @ 18% per annum, the respondent No. 1 also suffered damages as pleaded in the plaint to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs and a decree has been claimed in the suit for a sum of Rs. 10, 93, 863/-against the appellant/petitioner.
( 4 ) THE facts also pleaded in the plaint that th'e plaintiff No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein) joined causes of action with the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 1) and made herself a party in the instant suit.
( 5 ) IT would appear from the plaint and has been pleaded that the respondent No. 2 (plaintiff No. 2) at the instance of the said Nahata (being the father of the respondent No. 2) entered into a transaction with the appellant/petitioner under a Scheme called 'vyaj Badla Scheme' and after settlement of the said account between the parties, the appellant/petitioner through the said Nahata took a loan from the respondent No. 2 (plaintiff No. 2) a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and agreed to pay interest thereon @ 18% per annum and the said amount was agreed to be paid by the appellant/petitioner to the respondent No. 2 (plaintiff No. 2) on demand.
( 6 ) THE facts almost pleaded similar to the causes of action of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 1) and it has been stated that a cheque for rs. 5 lakhs was handed over to C. P. Sikaria and Company, the same was deposited in the personal account of the appellant/petitioner and encashed the appellant/petitioner has also failed to repay the said amount on demand. It is also pleaded that the respondent No. 2 has suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 10,90,849/- became due and payable by the appellant/petitioner to the respondent No. 2.
( 7 ) THE suit has been filed after joining the causes of actions of the respondents amongst themselves.
( 8 ) IT further appears that two suits have also been filed by the appellant/petitioner against these respondents before the City Civil Court at Calcutta, being the Money Suit No. 69 of 2002,, claiming a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,614-16 paise from the responde
