For a suit to be competent, the plaintiffs must have a joint interest in the causes of action and the relief must arise from the same act or transaction. This requirement is outlined in Order 1, Rule 1 and Order 2, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.

1. Lobsang Khampa and ten others have filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 73,618.37p. from Sanam Ram defendant on the allegations that they are Tibetan-refugees settled in India and raised potato crops during the year 1969 by taking lands on lease from the local zamindars. The potato crop was ready in September/October, 1969 and the plaintiffs being not conversant with the local dialect experienced some difficulty in marketing their crop. Accordingly the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to purchase their crop at an agreed rate of Rs. 70/- per bag for A-I quality and Rs. 60-per bag for A-II quality of potatoes. Individual plaintiffs supplied separate quantities of potato bags. They had also taken manure separately from the defendant for which they are liable to pay to the defendant which amount they have set off in the present suit. According to plaintiffs the total cost of potato bags was Rs. 97,318.27, while they have to pay Rs. 9,280.00 as cost for manure. Besides, the defendant paid Rs. 14.420.00 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. In this manner a sum of Rs. 73,618.37 is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

2. The defendant objected, inter alia, that the suit filed by the eleven plaintiffs jointly is not competent, as the right to relief does not arise out of the same act or transaction, or series of acts or transactions, nor a common question of law or fact arises. Similarly several causes of action could not be joined as the plaintiffs were not jointly interested in them against the defendant. In this manner there is misjoinder of parties as well as causes of action and hence the suit is defective for multifariousness. In fact the individual plaintiffs should have filed separate suits and in that contingency this Court will have no jurisdiction and the plaint is liable to be returned for presentation to a competent Court.

3. The preliminary objections enumerated above gave rise to the following two issues: Issue No. 1:- Is the suit filed by the plaintiffs jointly not competent as alleged?; and Issue No. 2:- Can the plaint be returned for presentation to proper Court as according to defendant the valuation of suit in respect of individual plaintiff is less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court?

4. As the suit can be disposed of in this Court, on the decision of these two issues, I need decide them at these present stage. FINDINGS

5. Issue No. 1: In the plaint under paragraph 4 it is stated that the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to purchase the potato crop of the plaintiffs at an agreed rate which is specified. In paragraph 5 individual supply of potato bags made by the plaintiffs is described, In paragraph 7 individual payments made to respective plaintiffs are given. In paragraph 8 separate quantities of manure were supplied to individual plaintiffs and its valuation is described. In paragraph 11, the cause of action is stated to arise "on diverse dates between 15th October, 1969 to 13th November, 1969 when the supply was made by the plaintiffs to the defendant" and "on diverse dates when the part payments were made by the defendant to the plaintiffs". It is further averred that "the cause of action also arose on different dates when demands of the plaintiff were made and the defendant assured for payment after admitting his liability". It is significant to note that in the plaint it is nowhere stated that the plaintiffs were jointly interested against the same defendant in several causes of action, or that the relief arises out of the same act or transaction, or that even a common question of law or fact arises. In the written statement when the plea of multifariousness was taken by the defendant, in the replication for the first time the plaintiffs averred that they "jointly agreed to supply the potatoes to the defendant at the common rate" and that "common questions arise between the parties". The plaintiffs mentioned Order 1, Rule 1 of the Civil P