MAHESH CHANDRA, J. ( 1 ) BY this order, I propose to dispose of Issue Nos. 3 and 4 framed vide orders dated 10th February, 1987 by G. C. Jain, J. in this suit for recovery of Rs. 6,47,476,31 in as much as both these issues were ordered to be treated as preliminary. ( 2 ) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiff Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 6,47,476. 31 against the defendant Shri Vinod Kumar Bhalla, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Navik Comercial Enterprises. The issues are as follows :- "3. Whether the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties. 4. Whether the proper court fee has been paid ?" ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the plaint and the written statement arid the documents placed on record and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me I have come to the following findings : ISSUE NO, 3 : ( 4 ) IT would be appropriate to mention at the outset that from the perusal of the plaint, it would be found that the suit relates to recovery of amounts due to the plaintiff from the defendant on account of one account maintained in Karol Bagh Branch thereof and two accounts maintained with Parliament Street Branch thereof. In para 1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement the contention of the defendant is:- "the suit is bad for multifariousness of partics and causes of actions, hence the same merits dismissal. The suit comprises of accounts of two different branches of the bank with different causes of actions. Each branch is a separate entity for the purposes of the suit and as such causes of actions arising at two different branches under different accounts/dealings cannot be joined together and thus the suit is bad and liable to be dismissed". ( 5 ) IN reply thereto the plaintiff has submitted in para 1 of its replication :- "the objections contained in para I of the preliminary objections are not maintainable. The plaintiff in the suit is a body corporate having different branches and the defendants having transacted with the plaintiff in its corporate character is entitled to file the suit in respect of both the branches in the same suit. The plaintiff in the suit is a body corporate having different branches and the defendants having transacted with the plaintiff in its corporate character is entitled to file the suit in respect of both the branches in the same suit. It is denied that the suit is bad for any alleged misjoinder of parties or multifarionsness as alleged ( 6 ) MY attention has in this behalf has been drawn by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to Section 3 Sub-section 4 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. This sub-section lays down as follows : "section 3 (4): Every corresponding new bank shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to contract and may use and be sued in its name". This shows that under Section 3 (4) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 the right to sue vests, in the bank as a body corporate rather than in any particular branch thereof and as such as suit has to be filed in the name of the plaintiff bank and not in the name of any of its particular branch. That being the position it should be open to the plaintiff bank under Order 2 rule 3 Civil Procedure Code to file the suit for consolidated amount doe to the plaintiff from the same defendant in one suit. Learned counsel for the defendant has not been able to draw my attention to any. bar in the C. P. C. in this behalf. Let us also consider the Provisions of C. P. C. in this behalf. ( 7 ) IT is Orders 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which lay down the law on the point. Order I Civil Procedure Code relates to "parties to suit" while order 2 relates to "frame of suit". Strictly speaking these two orders cannot be treated as relating to wo distinct topics. The question of parties involves that of cause of action and vice versa. Provisions of these Orders are rather intended to avoid multiplicity of suits. . Order I rule I of he Civil Procedure Code provides for persons who may be joined as plaintiffs . It reads as under : "1. The question of parties involves that of cause of action and vice versa. Provisions of these Orders are rather intended to avoid multiplicity of suits. . Order I rule I of he Civil Procedure Code provides for persons who may be joined as plaintiffs . It reads as under : "1. All persons may be joined In one suit as plaintiffs where.- (a) any right, to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. Order 2 rule 3 Civil Procedure Code provides for Joinder of Causes of Action and it lays down as under: "3 (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 defendants 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". Order. 2 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code. contains limited bar to joinder of causes of action and confers power on the court to order separate trial and provides as under :- " (6) Where it appears to the court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice". Reading of these Orders 1 (1) and 2 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code together with sub section 4 of Section 3 of theBanking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 would show that the right to sue vests with the Bank of India as a body corporate rather than in any particular branch thereof and in view thereof, it would follow that it is open to the Bank of India to file one consolidated suit in respect of its claim against the same defendant so long as it does not violate any other provisions of law such as jurisdiction of the court, particularly when a right to relief in respect thereof arises out of the same act or series of transactions as is the position in the instant case. It will be only where such consolidation is likely to embarrass or delay the trial of the suit or is Otherwise inconvenient that the, court would exercise its jurisdiction und6r rule 6 of Order 2 and in that event it may put the plaintiff to election. It is always open to the plaintiff to join different causes of action against the same defendant so long as such joining does not cause any embarrassment or delay in the trial of the suit or is not otherwise inconvenient within the meaning of Order 2 rule 6 C,p. C. . No doubt some common link or nexus must be found in order that the requisite as to their being the same act or transactions or the same series of act of transactions may be satisfied to enable such joinder of causes of action. Joinder of such causes of action on the same set offacts is that principle permissible. It cannot he. said by any stretch of imagination that the present suit is bad for misjoinder of plaintiff. In fact there is no. misjoinder of parties Which is involved in the instant case What is involved is joinder of causes of action. Joinder of different causes of action is permissible if the court trying them has jurisdiction in respect of all causes of action. The purpose of Order 2 rule 3 Civil Procedure Code is to avoid maltiplicity of suits. To achieve this purpose and to avoid multiplicity of suits the court would rather permit a joinder of two or more causes of action in one suit. The purpose of Order 2 rule 3 Civil Procedure Code is to avoid maltiplicity of suits. To achieve this purpose and to avoid multiplicity of suits the court would rather permit a joinder of two or more causes of action in one suit. Order 2 rule 3 Civil Procedure Code. authorises a plaintiff to. unite several causes of action against a single defendant subject, however, to the limitation that if such joinder is likely to embarrass or delay trial and all the causes of action cannot be conveniently tried together, an order may be made directing separate trials of the same. It is only when various causes of section are distinct and cannot be conveniently tried together and when the joinder of numerous causes of action amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is likely to embarrass or delay the trial that the court would put the plaintiff on election and riot otherwise. Thus where a defendant transacts business with different branches of a body. corporate having right to sue, such body corporate can join different causes of action arising out of these transactions in one suit so long as it does not embarrass or delay the trial or is not otherwise inconvenient provided the court has jurisdiction to try all these causes of action. ( 8 ) THE amounts sought to be recovered in the account maintained by the defendant in Karol Bagh Branch of the plaintiff relates to irrevocable letters of Credit granted through the fadlily of packing credit loan limit account. It has been categorically mentioned in para 8 of the plaint that after opening the abovementioned account with Karol Bagh Branch the defendant "approached the plaintiff bank and represented to the plaintiff bank that in order to facilitate their banking operations they would like to have further pro-shipment facilities from thepai liament Street Branch of the plaintiff-bank. The defendant re presented that on sanctioning of the "various facilities in the form of pre-shipment finances he will operate the banking account will the Parliament Street Branch of the plaintiff bank. The defendant re presented that on sanctioning of the "various facilities in the form of pre-shipment finances he will operate the banking account will the Parliament Street Branch of the plaintiff bank. It was also suggested that whatever amount is due and outstanding in the existing packing credit account with Karol Bagh Blanch the same shall stand adjusted on export performance in near future",in pursuance thereof the packing credit loan account in the name of the defendant was opened in Parliament Street Branch of the plaintiff by the defendant. Thereafter at the request of the defendant the plaintiff bank had in its Parliament Street Branch also granted another pro-shipment advance in the form of shipping loan having a limit of Rs. 2 lacs to the defendant and the am ount is sought to be recovered by the plaintiff on account of balances in all these three accounts. In the face of this factual position, it would be all the more difficult to say that the transactions are altogether distinct and separate. Keeping in view all these facts it is difficult to accept that the defendant has established this issue and as such issue No. 3 is decided against the defendant. ( 9 ) IT has been conceded by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that even though one single suit can be filed by the plaintiff in respect of all the three accounts but the court fee is payable separately one each of the counts and accordingly in view thereof I hold that the plaintiff has failed to pay full court fee in this suit and this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff is accordingly directed to make good the deficiency in court fee without four weeks hereof. ( 10 ) NO other point has been raised. ( 11 ) THIS disposes of the preliminary issues 3 and 4. ( 12 ) LET the suit be now listed for trial on other issues. For fixation of dates of trial to belisted before the Deputy Registrar on 19th October, 1987.