JUDGMENT : A.N. DIKSHITA, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has sought for the quashing of the order dated 11-4-1980 passed by Respondent No. 2 and the order dated 12-8-81 passed by Respondent No. 1. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are these s Respondent No. 3 filed a suit titled as Sri Chandra Bhan Verma v. B.K. Jain which was registered as Suit No. 412 of 1978 in the court of Munsif Aligarh, against the Petitioner for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 9248/-, Rs. 5500/- being the amount of loans and Rs. 3748/- being the amount of interest. The allegation in the plaint was that the Petitioner had borrowed the total sum of Rs. 8500/- by executing pronotes for various sums on different dates (Rs. 1500/- on 1-7-1972; Rs. 1500/- on 6-2-1975; Rs. 1500/- on 6-3-75 and Rs. 1000/- on 21-3-1975). The Petitioner pleaded that the court of Munsif Koil, Aligaih, had no jurisdiction to try the suit, inter alia, pleading that Instead of four suits which ought to have been filed in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Allgarh, only one suit had been filed. Respondent No. 2 framed a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. This issue was decided against the Petitioner and it was held that the court (Respondent No. 2) had (he jurisdiction to try the suit. The Petitioner preferred a revision against the aforesaid order dated 11-4-1980 passed by Respondent No. 2. Such a revision was also dismissed by Respondent No. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 12-8-1981. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 11-4-1980 and 12-8-1981 the Petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that Order 2 Rule 3 CPC permits joinder of causes of action but such joinder of causes of action cannot be done in order to oust the jurisdiction of some other court. It was contended that the jurisdiction to pass a decree for the recovery of the amount vested in the court of Judge, Small Causes, as contemplated by Sections 15 and 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act which alone had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the amount of loan borrowed by the Petitioner from Respondent No. 3 from time to time. It was submitted that Sections 15 and 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act prevailed over Order 2 Rules 2 and 3 CPC and hence suit for the consolidated amount as filed by Respondent No. 3 in the court of Respondent No. 2 was not maintainable. On the other hand, on behalf of Respondent No. 3 it was submitted that as provided u/s 21(2) CPC the objector has to satisfy two conditions viz. firstly that the court had no jurisdiction and secondly that there bad been a consequent failure of justice. It was contended on behalf of Respondent No. 3 that in the instant case no such plea was taken nor it was shown as to how any prejudice would be caused to the objector. It was further submitted that Rule 3 of Order 2 CPC has to be read together with Rule. 2. It was also submitted that the very object of Order 2 Rules 2 and 3 CPC was in fact to prevent multiplicity of suits and hence the suit was fully competent and maintainable. 4. The controversy in the present petition lies in a narrow compass whether the courts below erred in law in regard to the applicability of Order 2 Rules 2 and 3 Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 2 assumed the jurisdiction which otherwise be was not possessed of. It was further submitted that the opening words of Order 2 Rule 3 CPC "same as otherwise provided" makes it clear that a suit may be filed in a court after joining different causes of action only if that court bad jurisdiction to try each and every cause of action individually. Hence, it was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 2 while rejecting the objection of the Petitioner ignored the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. 6. In reply to the argument raised on behalf of the Petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the court the learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon Sub-section (2) of Section 21 CPC which reads as under: 21(2). 6. In reply to the argument raised on behalf of the Petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the court the learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon Sub-section (2) of Section 21 CPC which reads as under: 21(2). No objection as to the competence of a court with reference to the pecuniary limits of Its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. 7. For a fair appraisal of the submissions made on behalf of the parties it is necessary to extract Rule 3 of Order 2 CPC which is reproduced below: 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. 8. On the basis of the above provisions it is imperatively necessary that firstly the objection as to the competence of the court should have been made in the court of first instance and secondly it must be shown that there had been consequent failure of justice. In the instant case it is not emerging that the Petitioner ever raised the objection that in view of the assumption of jurisdiction by Respondent No. 2 there had been a failure of justice. 9. In Shabbar Ali Khan and Another Vs. Mardan Ali Khan and Another, AIR 1974 All 353 it was held that it was for the objector to satisfy the court that there bad been a consequent failure of justice on account of the trial of the suit in the civil court. Further in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. 9. In Shabbar Ali Khan and Another Vs. Mardan Ali Khan and Another, AIR 1974 All 353 it was held that it was for the objector to satisfy the court that there bad been a consequent failure of justice on account of the trial of the suit in the civil court. Further in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others, AIR 1954 SC 340 it was held that it must be shown that prejudice would be caused to the Defendants in case the suit proceeded in a particular court. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act provides for cognizance of the suit by the Court of Small Causes whereas Section 16 of the said Act contemplates exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. Thus it was contended that the instant suit was not cognizable by the Respondent No. 2. I am unable to agree with this contention. In view of an exclusive provision having been made under Order 2 Rule 3 CPC with regard to the determination of jurisdiction of the court where different causes of action are being joined together and are being tried by the court by minimizing litigations, the intention of the Legislature is clear that the instant suit was absolutely maintainable. 11. In Manzurul Haq v. Hakim Mohsin Ali 1970 AWR 419 a Full Bench of this Court held: The marginal heading of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act shows that the Court of Small Causes exercises exclusive jurisdiction. The meaning of the word "exclusive" in that heading is ambiguous. It is clear that the Court of Small Causes is apparently a court of preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction. Further Section 3 CPC provides that every Court of Small Causes is subordinate to High Court and the District Court. Section 16 of the Small Cause Court Act thus cannot override or affect the provisions of Rules 2 and 3 of Order 2 Code of Civil Procedure. Rules 2 and 3 of Order 2 CPC read together would provide to include the whole claim. In Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty and Others, AIR 1970 SC 1059 it has been held that cause of action means the cause of action for which the suit was brought. In Sardar Balbir Singh Vs. Rules 2 and 3 of Order 2 CPC read together would provide to include the whole claim. In Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty and Others, AIR 1970 SC 1059 it has been held that cause of action means the cause of action for which the suit was brought. In Sardar Balbir Singh Vs. Atma Ram Srivastava, AIR 1977 All 211 a Full Bench of this Court held that Rule 3 of Order 2 CPC permits a Plaintiff to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant or the same Defendants jointly and that no question of convenience or inconvenience was material under Rule 3 of Order 2 Code of Civil Procedure. It was further held that the intention of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was to prevent multiplicity of suits by prohibiting splitting of claims arising from the same cause of action. 12. In Ambika Upadbyaya v. Nakched Upadbyaya 1954 AWR 585 a Full Bench of this Court held that a Plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon Anil Kumar Roy Vs. Mansanath Shaw, AIR 1975 Cal 293 . In that case it was held that wages and commission are two different things and the two claims cannot be compounded together under Order 2 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure. It was held that the claim for wages and commission being separate and distinct from each other separate suits ought to have been filed. This authority is of no avail to the Petitioner as it is distinguishable on facts. 14. It is thus clear that no illegality was committed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 nor Respondent No. 2 assumed jurisdiction which otherwise he did not possess. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions there is no merit in this petition which deserves to be dismissed. 16. In the result the petition is dismissed with costs and the stay order passed by this Court on 16th December 1981, is vacated. Respondent No. 2 shall proceed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.