SHINGHAL, J.—This revision petition of the defendants is directed against the finding of Additional Munsiff No. 2, Bhilwara, dated May 22, 1973, by which he rejected their plea regarding mis-joindar of parties and causes of action. The controversy centres round the following facts.

2. One Lal Mohammad, who is not a partv to this case, was the owner of a plot of land which he let out to the defendants on a rent of Rs. 50/- per mensem, with effect from October 1, 1968. The four plaintiffs (who joined in the suit) alleged that the said Lal Mohammad sold four different portions of that plot to them, by four separate sale-deeds dated April, 1, 1971, and asked the defendants, by a registered notice dated April 7, 1971, to attorn to them. The plaintiffs thereafter instituted the suit, which has given rise to the present petition, on August 3, 1971, for the eviction of the defendants, on the ground that they required their respective portions of the plot for their reasonable and bonafide use. They also prayed for the recovery of Rs. 150/-on account of arrears of rent, for a period of three months, and damages. The defendants raised a number of pleas one of which was a plea relating to mis-joinder of parties and causes of action which gave rise to issue No. 8. As that issue has been found by the trial court against the defendants, they have approached this court by why of the present revision petition.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Munsiff has acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in deciding issue No. 8 against the petitioners by his impugned order dated May 22, 1973, because the suit suffered from the defect of mis-joinder of causes of action within the meaning of Order II rule 3 C.P.C. Reference in this connection has been made to the decisions in Hadu Sahu vs. State of Orissa(l), Haru Bapari vs. Roy Kahitish Bhusan Roy Bahadur(2), and Mansukh Lal Dhanji Vora vs. Jupiter Airways Ltd.(3).

4. As has been stated, four persons have joined in this suit as plaintiffs and the question at the threshold is whether that could be said to be permissible? Rule 1 of O. 1, I.P.C., which deals with the question of joinder of plaintiffs, provides as follows:

"All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs in whom 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, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, where, if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise."

Before any persons may join as plaintiffs, it is thus necessary that a relief in respect of or arising out of the "same act" or "transaction or series of acts or transaction" should be alleged to exist. This requirement has obviously been fulfilled in the present case as the "same act" is that relating to the lease of the premises by Lal Mahammad, to the defendants, on October 1, 1968, on a rent of Rs 50/- per mensem. The relief which the plaintiffs have claimed, jointly, against the defendants thus arises out of that basic fact, not only in regard to that part of the suit which relates to the recovery of the arrears of rent and damages, but also the other part relating to eviction from the suit premises. One essential requirement of Order I rule 1 C.P.C. has therefore been fulfilled in this case. According to the other requirement of the rule, joinder of plaintiffs would be permissible if it could be shown that "any common question of law or fact" would arise if they brought their suits separately. It is quite obvious in this case that the common questions of fact which would arise on the filing of separate suits would be those relating to the existence of the tenancy granted by Lal Mohammad and the non-payment of rent by the defendants at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensem. It is therefore clear that both the essential requirements of Order I rule 1 C.P.C. have been fulfilled and there is no reason wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document