IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under Order 2 Rule 3 of the CPC, multiple causes of action can be combined in one suit, and the jurisdiction is determined by the aggregate value of the claims, overriding the limitations set by Clause 14 of the Letters Patent.

JUDGMENT :

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

This application has been filed to join together all the cause of action in one suit in respect of the suit promissory notes.

2. The suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,05,36,869/- together with interest on Rs.99,80,000/- at 2% per month from the date of plaint till realization. It is the case of the plaintiff, that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.052012, on 25.11.2023 borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, on 21.02.2014 borrowed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-, on 26.02.2015 borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the promissory notes have been executed by the defendant and it is a running account and the defendant has been continuously paying interest on various dates from 2015 and the last payment has been paid on 05.08.2020. Hence, the present application.

3. Counter has been filed by the respondent stating that there is no lender and borrower jural relationship. According him, all the promissory notes are valued at less than Rs.one crore and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per clause 14 of Letters Patent. Clause 14 of Letters Patent is not a provision to join several causes of action contemplated to amalgamate them to enhance the valuation so as to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, according to him, as per Clause 14 of Letters Patent, this Court has no jurisdiction and if the High Court has no jurisdiction in respect of one such cause of action, causes of action cannot be combined. The learned counsel further submitted that so as to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, which is not otherwise maintainable as framed, the present application has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that as per Order 2 Rule 3 of CPC, the value of the suit depend on the aggregate subject matters at the date of instituting the suit for the causes of action therefor. Hence, it is his contention that the Letters Patent cannot be applied. He has also brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.212 of 1986 wherein it has been clearly held that where the causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregated subject matters at the date of instituting the suit. Hence, it is his contention that the statutory provisions has an over riding effect on the provisions of Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. He has also relied upon the judgements of the Division Bench of this Court The Food Corporation of India Rep. by its Senior Regional manager, Madras – 6, Vs. M/s.Mayavaram Financial Syndicate rep. by the Managing Partner, P.Kalyanasundaram reported in 1993[2] LW 453 and the Division Bench of Lahore High Court in Chiragh Din Vs. Bhagwan Das reported in 1915 SCC OnLine Lah 152. The Division Bench of Lahore High Court in the judgment cited Supra has held as follows :

“On the point of jurisdiction we make no doubt that the learned Divisional Judge's finding is correct. The matter appears to be one of first impression and we have been referred to no direct authority on the point. Section 16 of the Small Cause Courts Act refers to a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. O.2 R.3 of the CPC permits a plaintiff to combine in one suit against a defendant several causes of action and the value of that suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is the aggregate value of all the causes of action comprised therein.

“It is no part of Court's duty to scrutinize every item included in a suit in order to determine whether any portions of that suit were triable by a Court of Small Causes. In this case, the suit was properly framed and included several causes of action against the same defendant. The suit regarded as one single suit was certainly not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the Sub-ordinate Judge had jurisdictio