When multiple causes of action are joined in a single suit against the same defendant, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is determined by the aggregate value of the subject-matters at the time of institution.

The Court made the following:

ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 19.02.2026, in I.A. No. 552 of 2025 in O.S. No. 34 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadiri, filed by the defendant under Order VII , Rule 11(d) C.P.C. to reject the plaint.

The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner / defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.20,41,266/- basing on four (4) separate promissory notes, dated 25.04.2020, 18.05.2020, 18.05.2020, 20.06.2020, the total amount of which due is Rs.20,41,266/- along with interest on the principal amount said to be due thereunder.

The petitioner filed I.A.No.552 of 2025 contending that the cause of action under each promissory note arose on different dates and therefore, the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) has no jurisdiction to try the suit as its pecuniary jurisdiction under each suit promissory note is above its pecuniary jurisdiction.

The petition was opposed by the respondent / plaintiff.

After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the aggregate value of the amount due under the suit promissory notes being Rs.21,50,000/- is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court.

Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed.

Order II , Rule 3(1) & (2) C.P.C. reads as follows:

“3. Joinder of causes of action :-

(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.

(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit.”

Though the suit promissory notes give raise to different causes of action, the plaintiff is entitled to file a single suit based on all four (4) promissory notes. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the order impugned in the revision petition. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision petition.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.