Misjoinder of causes of action is a procedural defect, not a bar to a suit. To prevent delay and multiplicity of litigation, courts should exercise discretion to order separate trials within the same suit rather than forcing the initiation of multiple independent civil suits.

ORDER :

PRANAY VERMA, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2022 (Annexure P/23) passed in RCS A-22/2018 by the 20 District Judge, District Indore whereby while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC preferred by defendants No.1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 21 they have been granted an option to continue the suit in respect of one agreement to sale executed between the parties and to file six separate civil suits in respect of the other six agreements to sale for their specific performance.

02. As per the plaintiffs, the suit land bearing Survey No.507 area 3.015 hectare, Village Mundla Nayata, Tehsil and District Indore was held by the predecessors of defendants. After their death, the defendants became the owners of the same. The plaintiffs entered into seven seperate registered agreement to sale with the defendants on different dates for purchasing their undivided and unidentified respective shares in the suit land. The total consideration of all the agreements was Rs.2,71,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.2,64,00,000/- was paid by way of earnest money. On 16.10.2017 remaining amount of sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- was also paid to the defendants. The only remaining act to be performed was execution of registered sale deed by defendants in favour of plaintiffs who have however not done so.

03. The plaintiffs have hence on 06-08-2018 instituted an action before the trial Court for specific performance of the contracts entered into by them with the defendants jointly, for possession of the suit land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner.

04. Upon service of summons upon them, defendants No.1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 21 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint submitting intr alia that deficit Court fees has been affixed thereupon and that the suit suffers from misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action. The plaintiffs contested the application by filing their reply to the same.

05. By the impugned order, the trial Court has held that as per provisions of Order 1 Rule 3-A and Order 2 Rule 6 of the CPC, the suit with regard to one agreement is maintainable and for remaining six agreements, it is not maintainable and the plaintiffs may exercise option to continue the suit in respect of one agreement and may file separate suits in respect of the other agreements. It has held that there has been misjoinder of causes of action. The plaintiffs are required to prove all the seven agreements separately against separate defendants and payment of considerations to different defendants and the Court would also be required to give its decision on each agreement separately. Even if plaintiff's claim is decreed, then also the defendants of each agreement would execute seperate sale deed in favour of plaintiffs as per their shares in the suit land. The execution proceedings would also be separate hence if in respect of all the seven agreements, one suit is tried it would result in great complications and delay in trial.

06. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the question of misjoinder of parties under Order 1 Rule 3-A of the CPC and of misjoinder of causes of action under Order 2 Rule 6 of the CPC is beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC in as much as a suit either bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action does