Provisions of order 23, rule 1, C.P.C. does not apply.

These cases which raise an interesting question of limitation have their origin in the suit Original Suit No. 191 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tiruchirappalli which was instituted by four subscribers to an auction chit managed by one M. K. Rangachari, the 55th defendant in the suit. The 54th defendant, M. V. Kuppuswami Chettiar was the father of the 55th defendant and the 56th defendant was the brother of the 55th defendant. The case of the plaintiffs was that the chit business was joint family business of defendants 54 to 56, that the chit under question carried on at Kubera Bhavanam, Malaivasal, Tiruchirappalli. in which the plaintiffs were interested was only a branch of the main business which was carried on by the 54th defendant at No. 49, Naniakara Street, Tiruchirappalli. the family house. Defendants 1 to 53 and defendants 57 to 74 were impleaded as other subscribers to the chit. Some of them, it was alleged as successful bidders at the chit auctions had drawn their chit amounts and their future payments were secured by security bonds. The 55th defendant who was managing the chit at Kubera Bhavanam absconded from 9th May, 1953 and the suit was instituted as one for administration of the affairs of the chit through Court, for realisation of the amounts due by the subscriber-defendants and for payment of the sums claimed to be due to the plaintiffs and the other creditors of the chit fund from the realisations, and by defendants 54 to 56 personally and out of their joint family properties. The plaint sets out the amounts severally due to the four plaintiffs and charged the 54th defendant with falsely and dishonestly disclaiming responsibility for the amounts due. The 55th defendant was set ex parte, and in defence defendants 54 and 56 challenged inter alia the maintainability of the suit as one for administration. The question of maintainability of the suit was dealt with as a preliminary issue and the Court accepting the contentions of defendants 54 and 56, that administration in respect of the assets of a living person was not known to law held further that the other chit subscribers were not necessary parties and the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The plaintiffs appeared to have laid the plaint on the basis of the observations in Thimmarasa Pai v. Subba Rao1 . However, the plaintiffs aid not challenge the correctness of the decision on the preliminary issue and it is unnecessary to examine whether the view taken on the preliminary issue is correct. Having found that the suit as one for administration did not lie, the Court held that logically it followed that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness though common questions of fact arose for consideration, particularly the claim that the chit was joint family business. Each of the plaintiff was an independent subscriber and the cause of action was distinct and different for each though against the same set of defendants. Holding that the joining of four plaintiffs in one suit will embarrass and delay the trial of the suit and that the causes of action could not be conveniently tried and disposed of together, the Court called upon the plaintiffs to elect the relief to be pursued in the suit.

These observations on the preliminary issues were understood by the plaintiffs to mean that they could not retain the suit as an administration suit with all the other defendants on record, and the plaintiffs filed a memo into Court intimating that they elected to have the trial of the suit in respect of the claim of each of the plaintiffs as a suit for monies due against defendants 54 to 56. By Interlocutory Application No. 13 of 1957 they applied for amendment of the plaint to maintain the suit as one by the four plaintiffs for recovery of the amounts due to them from defendants 54 to 56 (the father and two sons) as persons jointly interested in the conduct of the chit. On this application, the Court pointed o