Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 12 (MP)

Nade Ali v. Shabbir Hussain

2002-01-02

S.P.KHARE

body2002
JUDGMENT This is a revision by the defendant No. 1 to 3 against that part of order dated 15.3.2000 of the 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 58-A of 1997 by which it has been held that the suit is not bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The plaintiffs claim that they are owners of the house in dispute on plot No. 33, Jawaharganj, Jabalpur; the defendants No.1 to 3 are their tenants in one shop; defendant No.4 is tenant in another shop and the defendants No. 5 to 7 are their tenants in the third shop, the defendants No.1 to 3 were recovering rent of the two other shops from the defendants No.4 to 7 and were remitting the same to the plaintiffs and the defendants No. 1 to 3 have now started claiming that they are co-owners of this house. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for eviction against the defendants No. 1 to 3 under section 12(1) (a) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and for recovery of arrears of rent. They have also claimed the declaration that they are owners of this house and the defendants are their tenants. They have further claimed that the defendants No.1 to 3 be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from recovering the rent from the defendants No.4 to 7 and they should be directed to pay the rent to the plaintiffs. The objection of the defendants No.1 to 3 is that there is misjoinder of causes of action and the parties and, therefore, the suit as framed is not maintainable. The trial Court has overruled this objection. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is correct. The common thread which runs against all the defendants is that the plaintiffs claim that they are owners of all the three shops and the defendants are their tenants and the declaration of intention by the defendants No. 1 to 3 that they are co-owners and. entitled to recover rent from the other defendants. Therefore, the parties and causes of action can be joined as per Order 1 rules 3 and 7 and Order 2 rule 3 CPC. entitled to recover rent from the other defendants. Therefore, the parties and causes of action can be joined as per Order 1 rules 3 and 7 and Order 2 rule 3 CPC. According to Order 1 rule 3 CPC all persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where any right to relief in respect of the same act or transaction is alleged to exist against such persons and if separate suits were brought against 'such persons "any common question of law or fact would arise'. Therefore, where claims against different parties involve a common question of fact bearing sufficient importance in proportion to the rest of the action to render it desirable that the whole of the matter be disposed of at the same time, the Court may allow the joinder of the defendants and the causes of action. It is not necessary that all the defendants should be interested in all the reliefs or that their liability should be the same. It is essential that there should be some link or nexus, Further, according to Order 1 rule 7 CPC where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he is entitled to redress, he may join two or more defendants in order that the question as to which of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined as between all parties. In the present case the allegation of the plaintiffs is that the defendants No.1 to 3 have recovered rent on their behalf from the defendants No.4 to 7 and have not paid to them and the further allegation is that the plaintiffs are owners of the house and therefore they are entitled to recover rent from all the defendants. These are common questions of fact and all the defendants can be joined so that the dispute is adjudicated by the Court in the presence of all of them. Order 2 rule 3 CPC permits uniting in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendants jointly. There is no misjoinder of the parties or causes of action in the present suit. The revision is dismissed.