In a suit for recovery of money paid to prevent sale of separate accounts for default in payment of revenue, the payments made by the plaintiffs were distinct, separate, and unconnected with each other, and there was no common link or nexus to satisfy the requirements of O.1, R.3 and O.2, R.3, Civil Procedure Code, rendering the suit bad for multifariousness.

P. N. MOOKERJEE, J. :- The principal point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit in the present instance is bad on the ground of multifariousness, that is, misjoinder of parties and causes of action and is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The learned Subordinate Judge framed several issues in this case but the only effective decision that he has given is on the issue of multifariousness and he has dismissed the suit on that ground expressly stating that it was unnecessary for him in the circumstances of this case to "discuss" the other issues. In our opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge is right in his decision that the suit is bad on account of multifariousness and, accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed subject to the observations which will be made below. The reasons for our view will be found in the discussions which will presently follow.

2. The material facts leading up to the present appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs appellants were the proprietors of Separate Accounts Nos.314/1 and 314/2/1 of the parent Touzi No.314 of the Collectorate of 24 Parganas at the relevant time. Defendants Nos.1 to 4 were the proprietors of Separate Accounts Nos.314/5 and 314/8, Defendant No.5 was the proprietor of Separate Account No.314/7, Defendant No.6 was the proprietor of Separate Account No.314/9, Defendants Nos.7 to 9 were the proprietors of Separate Account No.314/10, defendant No.10 was the proprietor of Separate Account No.314/11, Defendants Nos.11 and 12 were the proprietors of Separate Account No.314/12, Defendants Nos.13 to 16 were the proprietors of Separate Account No.314/14, Defendants Nos.17 and 18 were the proprietors of Separate Account No.314/15 and Defendant No.19 was the proprietor of the residuary Separate Account of the parent Touzi (No.314) which was numbered as 314/R. S. According to the plaintiffs, they also acquired subsequently Separate Accounts Nos.314/7, 314/9 and 314/15, but that is not material for our present purpose as this acquisition took place after the relevant point of time involved in the present case.

3. There was default in the payment of the March kist of revenue for the year 1932 of the Separate Accounts mentioned above as belonging to the Defendants. On the 2nd June 1932, there was a gazette notification for sale of those Separate Accounts for default in the payment of revenue. On the 27th June 1932, sales were held but as there were no bids the sales were stopped and on the very same day the plaintiffs applied for permission to make deposits of the amounts in default in respect of the said Separate Accounts and the Collector granted them permission to make the deposits under S.9, Revenue Sales Act. The total amount thus deposited by the plaintiffs was Rs.4691/14/3 and the present suit was brought on the 26th June 1935 for recovery of the said sum of Rs.4691/14/3 pies with costs and interest, the total claim amounting to Rs.5551/7/3 pies. In the suit, all the defaulting proprietors of the Separate Accounts mentioned above were made parties as principal defendants and the other co-proprietors of the parent Touzi No.314 were also made parties as pro forma defendants and relief in the shape of reimbursement and contribution was claimed in the suit against the principal defendants. The suit was contested by a number of defendants amongst the defaulting proprietors and one of the common defences which was raised was that the suit was bad on account of multifariousness, that is, misjoinder of parties and causes of action. There were other defences also to the effect that the material allegations made by the plaintiffs were not true and, in any event, in the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs were not entitled to re-imbursement or contribution in respect of the payments alleged to have been made by them.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was bad for multifariousness and, although he made certain observat