JUDGMENT

1. The plaint in this suit was rejected by the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action and of Defendants. In appeal the District Judge, while agreeing with the Subordinate Judge that as a matter of strict law each infringement of the Plaintiff's right is a separate cause of action, was of opinion that the rule against multifariousness is in the main one of convenience, and that the Court has a considerable discretion in dealing with the matter. He observed that all the Defendants had one principal defence in common, though they might each have different minor defences, and on the balance of convenience he held that all the matters in issue should be disposed of in one suit. He accordingly reversed the Subordinate Judge's finding on the preliminary issue and remanded the case for decision on the merits. The Defendants appeal to this Court under cl. 28 of sec. 588, C. P. C. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the Plaintiff that no appeal lies, it being urged that while an order rejecting a plaint is expressly included within the definition of "decree" in sec. 2 of the Code, the definition does not embrace an order refusing to allow a plaint to be rejected.

2. This is, however, not a second appeal under sec. 584 against a decree but a first appeal under sec. 588 against an order passed under sec. 562. Such an appeal is expressly allowed, and that being so, this Court must consider whether or no there were valid grounds for ordering the remand. Now let us see what is the nature of the Plaintiff's case, Krishna Mohun and Gour Mohun were two brothers. The former died in 1290 or 17 years before suit. His widow, the Plaintiff, claims the ownership through her late husband of half the family property and alleges that her rights were infringed at different times and by different sets of Defendants under circumstances which are set out in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge.

3. There are four properties in suit and there are three sets of Defendants, Defendants Nos. 1 and 7 having acquired property No. 1, Defendant No. 3 through his father having acquired properties Nos. 2 and 3, and Defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 having obtained property No. 4, each at different sales in execution of different decrees brought against Gour Mohun as sole proprietor. The Defendants did not act in concert and did not combine together to dispossess the Plaintiff. It may be noted that Gour Mohun's heirs are made pro formd Defendants.

4. The lower Appellate Court having come to the conclusion that there were separate causes of action, was bound to follow the law and was not right in assuming a discretionary power based upon the convenience of parties. The learned Judge correctly states the law when he says the suit might be dismissed or at the discretion of the Court the plaint might be returned for amendment under sec. 53 of the Code.

5. It has, however, been pressed upon us that there is in this case only one cause of action and various authorities have been cited in support of this contention.

6. It may help to clear the ground if we first consider what is meant by a cause of action. A Plaintiff's cause of action is every fact which a Plaintiff must prove to support his case [see Read v. Brown 22 Q. B. D. 128 (1888) cited in Murti v. Bholaram I. L. R. 16 All. 165, 170 (1893)]. A cause of action arises when a legal right is infringed and the date and place of its accrual must be inserted in the plaint. Sec. 54 of the CPC provides that the plaint must contain, among other particulars, a plain and concise statement of the circumstances constituting the cause of action and when and where it arose. Now in this case it is alleged that the Plaintiff's right was infringed piecemeal by three different sets of Defendants at different times. Though the extent of the Defendants' title depends in each case upon the question whether Gour Mohun owned the entire property or only a moiety share, nevertheless there is no commun