ORDER

07.08.2023

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 05.08.2017 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 127A of 2016 whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

2. The facts of the present case are that a suit was instituted by the plaintiffs claiming declaration of title, injunction and possession concerning the suit house as described in plaint paragraph 1, inter alia on the ground that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 14/2 admeasuring 0.018 hectares was acquired by plaintiff No.1 through a registered gift deed dated 31.03.2005 executed in his favour by defendant No.1/petitioner whereas, Khasra No.14/8 admeasuring 0.014 was acquired by plaintiff No. 2 and 3 under the registered gift deed dated 26.04.2005 executed in their favour by defendant No.1/ petitioner. It is further pleaded that the possession was handed over to the plaintiffs by defendant No.1. It is also stated that defendant No.1 is in occupation as a licensee over the suit property since January 2016 and he refused to vacate the premises when demand was made by plaintiff No.1.

3. Defendant No.1 filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments. Defendant No.1/ petitioner moved two applications, one under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and another one under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was moved on the ground that the suit has not been valued properly and requisite Court fees have not been paid and the suit is barred by limitation also. In the application moved Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC, the ground was taken that there is a misjoinder of cause of action. It is stated that the plaintiffs have claimed their right over the suit property on the basis of two different registered gift deeds executed by petitioner/defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 31.03.2005 and plaintiff No.2 and 3 on 26.04.2005. The applications were rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.08.2017. Earlier, Civil Revision No. 161 of 2017 was preferred challenging both the orders and vide order dated 27.02.2020 the Civil Revision was dismissed and the order passed with regard to the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was affirmed. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the order passed in the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC and thereafter, the petitioner preferred this petition and vide order dated 07.09.2021 further proceedings of the civil suit was stayed by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that two gift deeds were executed by the petitioner in favour of the plaintiffs. The first gift deed was executed in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 31.03.2005 whereas the second gift deed was with regard to Khasra No. 14/8 in favour of plaintiff No.2 and 3 vide registered gift deed dated 26.04.2005. He would further submit that when two gift deeds were executed by defendant No.1, the plaintiffs ought to have filed two separate suits claiming right over the suit property based on gift deeds executed in their favour. He would further submit that the provision of Order 2 Rule 6 of the CPC deals with the power of the Court to order separate trials and according to the said provision, a joint suit was not maintainable therefore, the learned Court below committed an error of law in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC. He would also submit that according to Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 1 Rule 2 of the CPC, the suit preferred by the plaintiffs was not maintainable.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs would submit that a joint suit can be filed according to provisions of Order 2 Rule 3 of the CPC. Shri Prafull Bharat, learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to Order 2 Rule 3 of the CPC which provides for joinder of