This petition seeks to revise the order of Second Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras in O.S. No. 426 of 1957 directing the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the suit to elect as to against which of the two sets of defendants he would prefer to continue the suit.

The petitioner despatched certain goods to Howrah through the Railway. Respondents 1 to 3 represent the three zones of the Railway through which the goods had to travel. The 4th respondent is an insurance company with whom evidently the petitioner had entered into a contract of insurance. The petitioner claimed that the goods which he sent to Howrah were tampered with during the course of transit, and alleging misconduct on the part of the Railway Servants sued to recover damages. The 4th defendant, the insurer, was also made a party to the suit and a decree was sought against the insurer as well. There was however no complaint on the part of the latter that the precise nature of the cause of action against it had not been disclosed. Mr. Vedamanickam, who appears for the insurance company, made it clear before me that it was never the case of the insurer that there had been any misjoinder of causes