The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the maintainability of a suit based on a registered simple mortgage for a property situated outside the court's jurisdiction and the decision to leave the misjoinder of causes of action issue to be decided during the trial of the suit.

(C.NAGAPPAN, J.)

1. This original side appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2011, made in the application in A.No.1400/2011 in C.S.No.573/2001. The applicant/first defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The second respondent herein filed the suit under Order XXXVI Rule 2 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIV Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure on the original side of this Court, seeking for a judgment and decree as against the defendants, directing them to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.40,55,000/-with further interest and costs on a day to be fixed by the Court, and in default, the mortgaged property be sold and the proceeds applied towards the payment of the amount of the said principal, interest and costs, and in the event of such proceeds not being sufficient for the payment in full of such amount, to pay the plaintiff the amount of deficiency with interest and for a personal decree for the remaining sum.

3. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs on 10.7.1998, and executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of the immovable property in favour of the plaintiff and commencing from 11.7.1998, 13.7.1998, 15.7.1998, 17.7.1998 and 26.11.1998, the defendants had borrowed money from the plaintiff and her family members, friends and relatives and have executed the suit pronotes for their favour, for various amounts borrowed from them, and thereafter, various pronotes have been duly assigned in favour of the plaintiff who had settled the holdees of the pronotes and have taken over the rights accrued under the pronotes and under the memorandum of agreements and the claims have been clubbed as single account and the defendants are having a running account with regard to the various amounts received from the plaintiff and the body of creditors and the defendants committed default in making the payments and hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The second defendant remained ex-parte and the first defendant alone has filed written statement mainly contending that the present mortgage suit is a suit on immovable property and it could not be filed on the original side of this Court as the property is situated outside its jurisdiction and the plaintiff and the second defendant have hatched a conspiracy to create false documents to usurp the property from the first defendant and there is misjoinder of cause of action and the suit claim is not true and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The suit was filed in the year 2001. Originally, six issues were framed and the husband of the plaintiff by name Hariharan, filed proof affidavit as P.W.1, in lieu of chief-examination; but, before cross-examination, he died on 1.10.2010, and the plaintiff as P.W.2, filed proof affidavit on 1.11.2010, and Exs.P1 to P28 came to be marked on her side. Thereafter, the first defendant filed application in A.No.1400/2011 and sought for framing of the following additional issues and to direct the same to be tried as preliminary issues.

"Issue No.1

Is the suit based on a registered simple mortgage in respect of a property situated outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court maintainable as framed?

and

Issue No.2

Is not the suit bad for misjoinder of several causes of action inasmuch as the plaintiff has combined in the suit several promissory notes (numbering to 21) executed only by the second defendant in favour of several individuals in one suit such that it is contrary to order II Rule 3 of C.P.C.?"

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the applicant/first defendant has stated that the property mortgaged, is at Door No.162-16, First Street, Ravi Colony, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016 and the original side of this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over it and equally, several diverse/multifarious causes of action have been clubbed in one suit by the plaintiff, which is contrary to Order II Rule 3 of C.P.C., and both issues have to be tried as p