The Civil P.C. permits the joinder of causes of action and allows for separate trials or other orders for convenience within the same suit, but does not mandate the filing of separate suits.

Puranik, J—The plaintiffs and the defendant are co-sharers in two villages in the Bhandara district, viz. Mohali and Kalamna. The defendant is the lambardar of both these villages. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for rendition of village profit accounts for certain years with respect to both these villages. The defendant pleaded that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. The Court framed a preliminary issue and held as under This is a suit for rendition of accounts of two villages, mouza Mohali and Kalmna. The causes of action joined in the case, cannot be conveniently tried. I therefore order under Order 2, Rule 6 that the plaintiff should elect within fifteen days from date as to with which of the causes of action, he wishes to proceed. An opportunity to amend the plaint is therefore given. His failure to avail of the same within time, would be visited with dismissal of the suit with costs.

It is against this order that the present application for revision is filed by the plaintiffs.

2. Order 2, Rule 3, Civil P.C., permits a plaintiff to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly. Joinder of these two causes of action in one suit is thus permitted by Order 2, Rule 3, Civil P.C. The Court, however, thinks that the trial of these two causes of action in one suit would be inconvenient. It is not indicated anywhere in the order where the inconvenience lies. Ordinarily, such suits for village profit by co-sharers in the one or more villages wherein the defendant is the lambardar are tried by the Judge together without any inconvenience. It is true that with respect to each village there will be separate issues, and the mere fact that separate issues have to be framed with respect to each village does not necessarily lead to inconvenience in the trial. But even assuming that there was some inconvenience in the trial of the two causes of action together the order of the Court calling on the plaintiffs to elect one of the two causes of action and asking them to make the election within a particular time, failure whereof would result in the dismissal of their suit, is an order which is not warranted by the Civil P.C.

3. Order 2, Rule 6, which is relied on by the Judge is to the effect that where it appears to the Court that any causes or action joined in one suit cannot be conveniently tried or disposed of together, the Court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient. do not think the order of the Court amounts to an order for separate trials. It does not come also under the other alternative 'or make such other order as may be expedient'. Separate suits are not intended by Order 2, Rule 6, Civil P.C. It was laid down in Khadar Saheb v. Chotibibi, that the trials mentioned in Order 2, Rule 6, which corresponded to Section 45 of the old Civil P.C., will not be distinct suits but will be in the nature of sub-suits under the title and number of the principal suit from which they spring. This was recently re-affirmed in Inder Bahadur Singh v. Sita Ram, 1941 AIR(All) 209 . Order 2, Rule 6, Civil P.C., therefore, does not contemplate that the plaintiff should be asked to file separate suits. For the sake of convenience the two causes of action may at the most be ordered to be tried separately, but in the same suit. The alternative order contemplated by Order 2, Rule 6, must be analogous to such an order, and must not be an order for different suits. It may be that the Court may frame issues for the trial in one suit and may order that the trial will start with the issue regarding a particular village to begin with and the trial of the issue regarding another village will come next. That is what is meant by 'make such other order as may be expedient'. But separate suits cannot be insisted on under the provisions of the Civil P.C. This is not a case of misjoinder of causes of action and parties where the plaintiff can be called u