Short Note : The plaintiff-applicant had filed the suit against the defendant-non-applicant for the recovery of four items of money, together with interest totalling Rs. 2930-50 p. It is not disputed that these four items were based on different causes of action. These four items, together with interest due thereon were as follows :-(i) Rs.1,000 (ii) Rs.1,292.50 p. (iii) Rs.219.00 and (iv) Rs.248.00 p. The suit was filed in the regular Court. The trial Court vide its order dated 28-7-1977 held that in view of the provisions contained in section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 the claim with regard to the item of Rs.1,292.50 p. was alone maintainable in the regular Court and that the claim relating to other items were not triable by the regular Court for the reason that each of the said claim was of a small cause nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Held : This Court agrees with the view that Order 2, rule 3 permits a plaintiff to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule provides that causes of action are so united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount of value of the aggregate of the subject matter at the date of institution of the suit. Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provides that a suit cognizable by a Court of small causes shall not be filed by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of small causes by which the suit is triable. It is true that in view of the clause, "save as otherwise provided" contained in Order 2, rule 3 of the Code, the provisions of the said rule have to be read with the provisions relating to exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes contained in section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. However, what is spoken about in section 16 is a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and not a part, though it may be distinct of a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. However, what is spoken about in section 16 is a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and not a part, though it may be distinct of a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Under the circumstances in the present case as one of the items of claim i.e. for Rs.1,292.50 p. was admittedly triable by a regular Court the other items of claim though individually cognizable by the Court of Small Causes could very well be joined with the said items of claim to be tried in the regular suit The said joinder neither offends the provisions regarding exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes contained in section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act nor transgresses the limits imposed by the. clause "save as otherwise provided" contained in Order 2 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is held that the entire claim of the plaintiff applicant amount to Rs.2,930.50 p. is triable by the trial Court. Ramaswamy Ayangar Vs. C. Ayyar 31 MLJ 839, Bishambhar Dayal Vs. Girdharilal, AIR 1953 All 158 relied on. Nav Samaj Ltd.. Nagpur and Others v. Civil Judge Class I Rajnondgaon 1967 JLJ 162 . Anil Kumar Roy v. Mansanath AIR 1975 Cal. 293 , referred to. Revision allowed.