A suit for declaration of ownership and injunction in respect of properties situate in different jurisdictions is not bad for multifariousness if there is a common question of law and fact arising from the alleged collusion and conspiracy of the defendants.

S. BARMAN, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs, wife and husband, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision directed against an order of the 1st Additional Munsif, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 14 of 1955 holding that the Court of 2nd Munsif, Cuttack had no jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the relief relating to Schedule A land, situate within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Kendrapara, and in so far as the suit relates to defendants Nos. 2, 5 and 6; and the suit was directed to proceed against the rest of the defendants including defendant No. 1 as proforma defendant only in respect of Schedule H property within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Kendrapara and Schedule C property within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Cuttack: and the plaint was directed to be amended accordingly.

( 2 ) THE only question for consideration in this matter is whether the learned Munsif was right in making the order thus splitting up the plaintiffs' alleged cause of action against all the the defendants and in respect of properties situate both within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Cuttack as also within that of the Munsif of Kendrapara. For this purpose, it is necessary to consider the frame and nature of the suit which the plaintiffs had filed in the Court of the Munsif, Cuttack. It has to be decided whether the suit as filed in the Cuttack Court is bad for multifariousness and also to consider whether the splitting up of the cause of action is likely to result in multiplicity of proceedings. Futhermore, it has also to be considered whether the effect of the order under revision is likely to lead to two conflicting orders made in the two courts -- one by the Cuttack Court in respect of the alleged cause of action and the other by the Kendrapara Court in respect of the same cause of action. Undoubtedly, such likelihood of such conflicting decision in parallel proceedings in more than one court must be avoided.

( 3 ) THIS leads me to consider the facts, circumstances and the back-ground in which the plaintiffs have brought the suit in the Cuttack Court affecting properties situate both within Cuttack and Kendrapara jurisdictions and further as against two sets of defendants -- one set resident within Cuttack jurisdiction and the other within Kendrapara jurisdiction. The material facts, shortly stated, are these: On January 11, 1955 this suit was filed initially against four defendants for a declaration, that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of A, B and C Schedule lands and that the defendants, Nos. 2 to 4 have no manner of right, title and interest or possession over the same; for an order of permanent injunction on defendants Nos. 1 to 4 restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands; alternatively, in case the plaintiffs are found dispossessed of the disputed lands or any portion of the same, then the plaintiffs be put into possession of the same or if, they are in possession, the same may be confirmed; for declaration that the alleged sale deed and the usufructuary mortgage bond of defendant No. 2, is void and inoperative; and for costs and other reliefs. Among the three schedules referred to in the plaint. Schedules A and B are within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Kendrapara. Schedule C is within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Cuttack. The suit was brought in the Cuttack Court with certain allegations in the plaint made against defendants, 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. The basis of the alleged cause of action is collusion and conspiracy among the defendants in order to oust the plaintiffs from all these properties, situate both within Cuttack and Kendrapara jurisdiction. It appears from record, that there was an amendment of the plaint adding two more defendants, namely defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 6 The main cause of action against the defendants is stated in paragraph 15 of the plaint which; for convenience of ready reference, is set out below:

"that taking advantage of the fact