Separate causes of action against separate defendants cannot be joined in one suit.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has alleged that she is the owner of property No. 2287/ I situated at More Sarai Barafkhana, Koriapul, Delhi and had agreed to let out her share of the property - 4000 sq. feet in area to the defendant No. 1 by means of an agreement dated 1. 6. 1993 at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500. 00 ; for this a regular lease deed was to be executed and registered, but the defendant failed to do so and is in unauthorised possession as a trespasser. In the alternative, it is alleged that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 18. 10. 1996. The plaintiff in this suit has claimed the following reliefs against defendant No. 1 : 1. Decree for possession of the premises. 2. Decree for recovery of Rs. l,62,000. 00 as damages foruse and occupation.

( 2 ) IN the plaint it is further alleged that the property was inspected by the officials of defendant No. 2 on 19. 11. 1997 and they are threatening to demolish and/ or seal the property in connivance with defendant No. 1, which cannot be done without notice as contemplated under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. A separate decree of injunction is sought against defendant No. 2 for restraining from demolishing and/or sealing the aforesaid property or any portion thereof without serving show cause notices as required under Sections 343 (1) and 345-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

( 3 ) IN para 18 of the plaint different and separate dates of causes of action have been alleged against defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2.

( 4 ) PRIMA facie it appeared that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties as well as causes of action and accordingly I have heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff on the following two preliminary points :

1. Whether the suit is not bad for misjoinder of the parties? 2. Whether the suit is not bad for misjoinder of causes of action?

( 5 ) RELEVANT provisions of Order 1 Rule 3 and Order 2 Rules 3 and 4 of the CPC read as under:

"order I Rule 3: Who may be joined as defendants-All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where- (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise. Order II Rule 3: Joinder of causes of action- (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they were jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. (2) Where causes of action are united the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matters at the date of instituting the suit. Order II Rule 4 : 4. Only certain claims to be joined for recovery of immovable property-No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, bejoined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except - (a) claims for mesne profits or arrear of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof; (b) claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held; and (c) claims in which the reliefs sought is based on the same cause of action: Provided that nothing in this Rule shall be deemed to prevent any party in a suit for foreclosure or redemption from asking to be put into possession of the mortgaged property.

( 6 ) AS a general rule only those persons can be joined as defendants to a suit against whom any right to relief is alleged to exist on the same cause of action.

( 7 ) ORDER 1, Rule 3 provides that all persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where any right to relief