Ambrose J:

This is an appeal from an order dismissing an application by the first defendant by summons in chambers dated 19 October 1962. The application was for the striking out of the name of the third plaintiff, Bank Koperasi, Tani Dan Nelajan, on the ground of improper joinder. It was made under O. 16, r. 11, of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1934. This rule provides as follows:

11.(1) No cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every cause or matter deal with the matter in controversy, so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.

(2) The Court or a Judge may, at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as appear to the Court or a Judge to be just, order that the names of any parties improperly joined, whether as plaintiffs or as defendants, be struck out, and that the names of any parties, whether plaintiffs or defendants, who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter, be added.

In my judgment, the provision in O. 16, r. 11(2), for the striking out of the names of any parties who have been improperly joined refers to the action as framed by the plaintiffs. In my view, the improper joinder of parties referred to in r. 11(2) is the misjoinder of parties referred to in r. 11(l) : and misjoinder in this context means the joinder of any person as a party to an action contrary to the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Order 16, r. 1, states who may be joined as plaintiffs in one action. This rule provides as follows:

All persons may be joined in one action as plaintiffs, in whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, where, if such persons brought separate actions, any common question of law or fact would arise.

Misjoinder of plaintiffs is, therefore, the joinder of persons as plaintiffs in the action as framed by the plaintiffs where such joinder is not permitted by O. 16, r. 1. The Bank Koperasi was not joined as a plaintiff in the action as framed by the first and second plaintiffs. At the commencement of the action, the Bank Koperasi was, in fact, not in existence. There was no joinder of the Bank Koperasi as a plaintiff contrary to the provisions of O. 16, r. 1. It must be pointed out that the Bank Koperasi was made a plaintiff by an order of Court made on an application by the first and second plaintiffs and the Bank Koperasi by summons in chambers dated 21 June 1962. This application was made under O. 18, r. 4. This rule provides as follows:

4. Where by reason of marriage, death, or bankruptcy, or any other event occurring after the commencement of a cause or matter, and causing a change or transmission of interest or liability, or by reason of any person interested coming into existence after the commencement of the cause or matter, it becomes necessary or desirable that any person not already a party should be made a party, or that any person already a party should be made a party in another capacity, an order that the proceedings shall be carried on between the continuing parties and such new party or parties may be obtained ex parte on application to the Court or a Judge, upon an allegation of such change, or transmission of interest, or liability, or of such person interested having come into existence.

This rule has two limbs. I have underlined the material parts of the second limb because one of the allegations upon which the application was made relates to the second limb. The allegation was that the Bank Koperasi was a person interested who had come into existence after the commencement of this action. Both defendants were served