The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of joinder of parties and cause of action in specific performance suits, as governed by the provisions of Order I, Rule 3 and Order I, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code.

ORDER : – The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 16-11-2022, whereby learned IV Additional District Judge, Dhar has directed to file separate suits against the defendants for specific performance of the contract and value them separately.

2. The petitioner, a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 agreed to purchase agricultural land of various survey numbers on 14-3-2005 with its respective owners (i.e. respondents No. 1 to 11). According to the petitioner/plaintiff, all the land mentioned in para – 5.2 of the writ petition is on a single map and the petitioner is interested to purchase the entire area of all the land as one chunk to start its industry. Respondents No. 1 to 11, were also interested in selling the land jointly to the petitioner. The deal was finalized through middleman Saleem Ghori. The petitioner agreed to purchase the land @ Rs. 3,18,000/- per hectare, accordingly paid Rs. 1,03,00,000/- by various cheques and cash amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- to Ghori Family.

3. Accordingly, respondents No. 1 to 11 did not perform their part as per the terms of the contract. The petitioner/Company had filed a civil suit for the decree of specific performance against respondents No. 1 to 11 by joining them as defendants in the said suit. Respondents No. 1 to 5 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation, misjoinder of the cause of action and misjoinder of parties etc. Vide order dated 16-11-2022, the learned IV Additional District Judge has held that each agreement constitutes an independent cause of action, hence, directed to file ten separate suits for each owner of the respective land. Hence, the present miscellaneous petition is before this Court.

4. Shri Thanevala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner with an interest to purchase a big area of land entered into an agreement to sell with the land owners i.e. respondents No. 1 to 11 jointly in order to establish a dairy form. Even if one or two of the owner refuse the sale of the land, then the petitioner may not agree to purchase the other land as well. By way of alternate relief, the petitioner/Company is seeking a refund of the amount. It is further submitted that possession of the land is with the petitioner. The cause of action and relief against all the respondents are identical, therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, one suit has been filed against the defendants which are permissible under Order I, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Iswar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel vs. Harihar Behera and another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 457, in which the Apex Court has held that the purpose of Order I, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code is to avoid the multiplicity of the suit. This rule to some extent deals with the joinder of the cause of action in as much as the plaintiff frames his suit, he impleads persons against whom he claims the cause of action. It has further been held that joinder of the cause of action has been provided for in Order II, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Nagpur High Court in the case of Parashramsao and others vs. Hiralal s/o Adku Patil, reported in AIR 1947 Nag 86, in which the Nagpur High Court has held that Order II Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code does not contemplate that plaintiff should be asked to file a separate suit.

5. Shri Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that by consolidating all the defendants and causes of action in one suit, the plaintiff has paid the maximum amount of the Court fee to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- otherwise on the basis of valuation of the propert