A suit is not bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action if there is a common question of fact and law involved and the provisions of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable.

N. K. DAS, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS are the petitioners against a judgment of reversal in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The appellate Court has remanded the suit to the trial Court and, as such, this revision arises.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that the suit lands belonged originally to one ratnakar Panda. He surrendered, these lands to the Mafidar of Jharsuguda late lal Haribansha Singh Deo by a surrender deed dated 21-2-1942, The Mafuidar settled these lands in favour of the plaintiffs by executing three documents of lease on 7-3-1942 and since then the plaintiffs have beea in possession of these lands. Thereafter the plaintiffs got these properties partitioned and they have perfected their title on the same. The defendant forcibly possessed these lands and amalgamated these lands with his own land and a proceeding under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was started which ended in favour of the defendants. The defendant in his written statement has stated that he purchased Plots Nos. 4812 and 4813 from one Ghasi Kisan on 20-11-1946 and since then he has been in possession of those plots. Portions of R S. Plot 4814 adjoin Plot No. 4812. He improved and converted those portions into paddy land and amalgamated those lands with his own land since 1946. He denies plaintiffs to be in possession of the lands in any way and that the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. has been properly decided. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were in possession and they have been dispossessed. The lower appellate Court haa held that the suit suffers from mis-joinder of parties and, as such, is not maintainable. Therefore, an issue was framed about the mis-joinder of parties and the suit was remanded for fresh trial to the trial Court. As against that decision, the present civil revision has been filed.

( 3 ) IN the plaint, plaintiffs have stated that there was a surrender of the lands by the original owner in favour of Maufidar. He settled these lands by deeds of lease on one day in favour of plaintiffs and since then the plaintiffs are in possession of those lands. The defendant in the written statement has stated that the suit is bad for multifariousness. The lower appellate Court has relied on the decision in Hadu Sahu v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 Orissa 159 and has held that the suit is not maintainable. In that case twenty-eight plaintiffs who were in separate possession of different parcels of land forming part of a survey number and against whom an order of eviction had been passed under Section 7 of Orissa Act 15 of 1954 brought a suit against the State Government on the allegation that each of them had acquired prescriptive title by adverse possession to a portion of land in his exclusive possession. Each of the plaintiffs set up a claim to a parcel of land in which the other plaintiffs were not interested. It was held that the suit was bad for multifariousness. There was misjoinder of plaintiffs because each plaintiff had separately to prove his own possession for more than sixty years and there was no common question of fact or law involved. There was also misjoinder of causes of action because the order of eviction passed against one plaintiff did not serve as a cause of action against another plaintiff in respect of another land. In that case it was held by the lower Court that the oral evidence was not cogent to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have been using the suit lauds since more than sixty years. At any rate some of the plaintiffs might have acquired some such right and not all the plaintiffs and from the evidence of a few all cannot he benefited so as to get a decree in common. Basing on those findings the High Court held that the suit was bad for multifarifusness as one of the plaintiffs may be in possession for mare than sixty years and others might not have been and they were not interested in the lands of others. This Court also did not acc