A directive requiring multiple plaintiffs to elect one representative was held invalid as it led to unnecessary litigation complications and was contrary to legal procedure allowing combined suits.

JUDGMENT:

1. In these two petitions, the parties are the same. In one of the petitions, the Petitioners have simply sought a direction to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Vasco to dispose of the pending suit in a time-bound manner, within a period of six months. The other petition challenges order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the aforesaid Court, whereby applications at Exhibits 68 and 79 have been disposed of. The application at Exhibit 68 was an application filed by the Respondents (Original Defendants) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Exhibit 79 was an application filed by the said Respondents under Order 1 Rule 2 of the CPC, for a direction to the Petitioners (Original Plaintiffs) to elect amongst themselves a single Plaintiff to proceed with the suit. The Petitioners are aggrieved, for the reason that while disposing of the said application vide impugned order dated 06.03.2021, the aforesaid Court has directed the Petitioners to elect amongst themselves as to who shall continue with the suit and that the other Plaintiffs could take necessary recourse to file fresh suits in order to seek specific performance from the Respondents i.e. the Original Defendants. According to the Petitioners, the aforesaid Court erred in applying the relevant provisions of the CPC, while disposing of the applications.

2. The facts in brief leading to filing of the present petitions are that the Petitioners filed Special Civil Suit No.25/2016/E against the Respondents i.e. Original Defendants seeking specific performance of agreements executed between the Petitioners on the one hand and the Defendants on the other, as also seeking liquidated damages from the Respondents. The Petitioners claim that they had individually entered into agreements with the developer i.e. Respondent No.5 for purchasing units/offices/shops in a commercial complex being developed by the said Respondent on the land belonging to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. According to the Petitioners, the said agreements formed part of the same series of transactions. On this basis, the Petitioners stated the details of the individual agreements pertaining to the Petitioners, the amounts paid in furtherance of the same and their readiness to pay the balance amount, for a direction to the Respondents to execute sale deeds in their favour. The Petitioners also stated the amount of liquidated damages that they individually were seeking from the Respondents before the Court below.

3. In the aforesaid suit, the Respondents filed an application at Exhibit 69 for rejection of plaint on the ground of non-payment of adequate Court fees and they also filed the aforesaid application at Exhibit 79 under Order 1 Rule 2 of the CPC, on the basis that there was misjoinder of causes of action on the part of the Petitioners in filing the suit on behalf of all the Petitioners.

4. The Court below took into consideration the rival submissions and referred to the relevant provisions of the CPC. On the question of rejection of plaint, the Court below found that non-payment of adequate Court fee was a technical deficiency which could be cured by a direction for payment of necessary Court fee. But, insofar as the application under Order 1 Rule 2 of the CPC was concerned, the Court concluded that the individuals in the aforesaid suit being different, the subject matter of their grievances pertained to different agreements and they were also claiming damages of different amounts, thereby indicating that if the suit was allowed to proceed, it would lead to inordinate delay and embarrassment. It was found that the su