ORDER Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J: The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 10.12.2008 [Annexure-E] passed by the Court of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 8642/1995. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed the suit against the respondents for the recovery of suit schedule A, Band C properties from the respondents-1, 2 an9- 3 respectively. The matter was set down for arguments on the closure of evidence by both sides. At that juncture, the respondents prayed for an order on additional Issue No.1, which reads as follows: "Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit is maintainable?" As the respondents have no common interest in suit schedule A, Band C properties, the Trial Court held that the suit is bad for multifariousness. On holding that there is misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties, the Trial Court, invoking Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC, returned the plaint directing the petitioners to file separate suits against each one of the respondents. 3. It is this order of the Trial Court, which is being assailed before me by Sri Chandan S. Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. He submits that there is no provision for the return of the plaint under Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC. He further submits that the provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC can be passed only if the joinder of causes of action is one suit is embarrassing a party or delaying the trial or causing inconvenience. In the instant case, none of these conditions are present. He further submits that if the plaint has to be rejected, it is only by scanning the averments contained in the plaint i.e., the Court is not required to look into the defence taken in the written statement while examining the maintainability of the suit. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd., & Others Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express & Others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1828 . The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted herein below: 11. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted herein below: 11. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court, mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In the present case, the averments made in the plaint, as has been noticed by us, do disclose the cause of action and therefore, the High Court has rightly said that the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code cannot be exercised for rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants. 4. He further submits that procedure is only the handmaid of justice. In the instant case, the trial is concluded. The suit is of the year 1995. After thirteen years, if the petitioners/plaintiffs are asked to file three suits, it would delay the process of recovering the possession from the respondents. He also takes exception to the conduct of the respondents, who did not press the additional issues for thirteen years (1995-2008). Only when the matter reached the arguments stage, they pressed the additional issue regarding the maintainability. He also takes exception to the conduct of the respondents, who did not press the additional issues for thirteen years (1995-2008). Only when the matter reached the arguments stage, they pressed the additional issue regarding the maintainability. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1531. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted herein below: "24: In the case at hand, the act of the plaintiff filing the suit before 25.6.1984 cannot be said to be malicious or intended to overreach the Court. The defendant's replay dated 8.11.1983 prompted the plaintiff in filing the suit inasmuch as the plaintiff reasonably thought that a cloud was already cast on his entitlement to recover the property and he should promptly approach the Court. True, the defendant could have changed his mind and thought of delivering the possession of the property to the plaintiff on or after 25.6.1984 the date whereafter only the suit could ordinarily have been filed and in that case there would have been no occasion at all for filing the suit. The defendant filed its written statement much after that date. The objection as to maintainability 6fthe suit was taken in the written statement. If only it would have been pressed for decision and the Court would have formed that opinion at the preliminary stage then the plaintiff could have withdrawn the suit or the Court could have dismissed the suit as premature. In either case, the plaintiff would have filed a fresh suit based on the same cause of action soon after 25.6.1984. By the time the suit came to be decided on 12.2.1992, the dismissal of the suit on the ground of its being premature would have been a travesty of justice when the plaintiff was found entitled to a decree otherwise. The learned Single Judge rightly overruled the defendant's objection and directed the suit to be decreed. The Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge". 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the power exercisable under Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC is for separating the trials, if the enumerated conditions are present. But, the provisions contained therein do not empower the Court to return or reject the plaint as such. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the power exercisable under Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC is for separating the trials, if the enumerated conditions are present. But, the provisions contained therein do not empower the Court to return or reject the plaint as such. In support of his submissions, he relied on the Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Md. Ishaq Vs. Abdul Majeed reported in AIR 1954 All 455. He read out the head note, which is as follows: "At the same time, the law has invested the Court under Rule 6 with power to order separate trials provided it finds it convenient to try or dispose of the different causes of action in one suit. But this privilege of ordering the trial to be split up into two or more trials is given to Court alone. The defendant cannot claim it as of right. If the Court does not find it inconvenient to try the suit as brought the plaintiff is certainly entitled to continue the suit in the form in which he has filed it". 6. Nextly, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that going by the scheme of CPC, there is no legal impediment for tying a suit which my be otherwise defective on account of the misjoinder of parties and causes of action: if such a suit is decreed, the same could not be set aside in the appeal merely on the ground that the said decree was passed in a suit which was defective for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. To buttress his submission, he sought to draw support from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Prem Lala Nahata & Another Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria reported in AIR 2007 SC 1247 . He submits that Order 2 Rule 6 enables the Court to order separate trials even in a case of misjoinder of causes of action in a plaint filed. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is extracted herein below: "11. Chandi Prasad Sikaria reported in AIR 2007 SC 1247 . He submits that Order 2 Rule 6 enables the Court to order separate trials even in a case of misjoinder of causes of action in a plaint filed. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is extracted herein below: "11. Thus, in a case where a plaint suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties or Misjoinder of causes of action either in terms of Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 1, Rule 3 on the one hand, or Order II, Rule 3 on the other, the Code itself indicates that the received defect does not make the suit one barred by law or liable to rejection. This is clear from Rules 3A, 4 and 5 of Order 1 of the Code, and this is emphasised by Rule 9 of Order 1 of the Code which provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties and the Court may in either case deal with the matter in controversy so far as it regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. This is further emphasised by Rule 10 of Order 1 which enables the Court in appropriate circumstances to substitute or add any person as a plaintiff in a suit. Order II deals with the framing of a suit and Rule 3 provides that save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of actions against the same defendant and any plaintiffs having causes of actions in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant may unite such causes of action in the same suit. Rule 6 enables the Court to order separate trials even in a case of misjoinder of causes of action in a plaint filed. 13. In the context of these provisions with particular reference to the Rules in Order 1 and Order II of the Code, it is clear that an object of misjoinder of causes of action, is a procedural objection and it is not a bar to the entertaining of the suit or the trial and final disposal of the suit. The Court has the liberty even to treat the plaint in such a case as relating to two suits and try and dispose them of on that basis. 15. The Court has the liberty even to treat the plaint in such a case as relating to two suits and try and dispose them of on that basis. 15. Thus, when one considers Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code with particular reference to Clause (d), it is difficult to say that a suit which is bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, is a suit barred by any law. A procedural objection to the impleading of parties or to the joiI,lder of causes of action or the frame of the suit, could be successfully urged only as a procedural objection which may enable the Court either to permit the continuance of the suit as it is or to direct the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the suit or even to try the causes of action joined in the suit as separate suits". 7. Per contra, Sri Gopalaiah, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised the threshold objection to the maintainability of the writ petition itself. He submits that an order passed under Order 2 Rule 6 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. returning the plaint is an appealable order. On the short ground of maintainability itself, this petition is liable to be rejected. He read out the head note of Kerala High Court Judgment in the case of Kunchu and Others Vs Vasu Master and Another reported in AIR 2005 Kerala 191 which is as follows: "Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) S. 115 Order 7, Rule 10(A)(2), Order 43, Rule 1 - Return of plaint - Revision against - Maintainability - Only intimation to return the plaint was given to plaintiff Further procedure provided under Order 7, Rule 10(A)(2) was not adhered to by plaintiff - Hence Court had not passed any order on it - Therefore, order for returning plaint held to be appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 - Since order is appealable revision is not maintainable against said order - No relief could be granted by converting revision into writ petition." 8. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the objection over the maintainability aspect was taken at the earliest point of time. The objection with regard to the joinder of causes of action of the defendants was taken in para-2 of the written statement. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the objection over the maintainability aspect was taken at the earliest point of time. The objection with regard to the joinder of causes of action of the defendants was taken in para-2 of the written statement. He submits that the petitioners' side is not justified in finding fault with the conduct of the respondents. It is the petitioners, who did not enter the witness box for 10 years. They started their examination-in-chief after 10 long years of the institution of the suit. He, further, brings to my notice that the suit was dismissed for default, no once but thrice. 9. Sri Gopalaiah, further submits that the suit involves different parties and three different causes of action. Therefore, the Trial Court's order returning the plaint by directing them to file separate suits is perfectly justifiable. 10. This Court has to consider the issue of maintainability of the Writ petition first. It is trite that if an order is without jurisdiction, the challenge to it can be entertained by way of writ petition notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy of appeal. An illegality committed by the Trial Court can always to corrected by this Court invoking the powers conferred on this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for the maintainability of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The second question that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the Trial Court, in exercise of powers conferred under Order 2, Rule 6 of CPC, can direct the petitioners-plaintiffs to file separate suits against each of the respondents?" 12. To answer this question, it is necessary, to refer to the provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 6 of the CPC which reads as follows: 6. Powers of Court to order separate trials - where it appears to the Court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial or is other otherwise inconvenient, the Court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice". 13. Powers of Court to order separate trials - where it appears to the Court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial or is other otherwise inconvenient, the Court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice". 13. The plain reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that the power is exercisable only in three circumstances or for three reasons, which can be enumerated as follows: a. If the joinder of causes of action is embarrassing b. If the joinder of causes of action is delaying the trial and c. If the joinder of causes of action is otherwise creating inconvenience. 14. In the instant case, none of the three enumerated circumstances or factors are present. Both sides have closed their sides of evidence. The trial is already concluded. No party is facing any embarrassment or Inconvenience. 15. Even assuming that one or more of the circumstances or factors is/are present, the Court could have only ordered separate trials. In the instant case, what is ordered is not a separate trial: but the plaintiffs are ordered to file three separate suits. Such a direction of the Trial Court to the plaintiffs-petitioners to file separate suits cannot but be held to be the one without jurisdiction. The second question is accordingly answered in the negative. 16. For one more reason also, the Trial Court's order is liable to be set aside. The provisions governing the return of the plaint are contained in Rule 10 of Order 7 of CPC which read as follows: 10. Return of plaint.-(1) ... at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. 17. The plain reading of the aforesaid provisions reveals that if the plaint has to be rejected, then the Court, which rejects it, has to specify the Court to which the plaint has to be presented. Normally, such returning of the plaint has to be presented. Normally, such returning of the plaint is in cases where the Court to which the plaint is presented has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. In the instant case, the Trial Court has not even given any definitive direction or finding as to the Court to which the plaint has to be presented. Normally, such returning of the plaint is in cases where the Court to which the plaint is presented has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. In the instant case, the Trial Court has not even given any definitive direction or finding as to the Court to which the plaint has to be presented. Further, it is not in dispute that the Trial Court, which passed the impugned order, itself has the jurisdiction to try the suit in question. When the return of plaint takes place, the plaint has to be Respondent-entertained by the proper Court. 18. In the instant case, the Trial Court has returned the plaint with a direction that it be properly drafted the presented. While returning the plaint, such a direction need not be issued. It is for the party and/or his learned Counsel to draft the plaint properly. 19. At a belated stage, the additional issue was pressed; the suit had almost reached the closure stage. The suit was ready for the arguments on the main matter. The Apex Court in the case of Vithalbhai (Supra) has taken the considered view that if the objection of maintainability taken in the written statement is not pressed for the decision at the preliminary stage, the dismissal of the suit at the advanced stage on the basis of the preliminary objection is not justified. 20. Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC given power to the Court to order separate trials in certain enumerated circumstances. The said power cannot be exercised to direct the plaintiffs to file three separate suits and that too in the absence of the said three enumerated circumstances. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Prem Lala Nahata (supra) has held that a suit. 22. Considering the factual matrix of the case, the statutory provisions and the case-law to which elaborate reference are made hereinabove, this Court finds it difficult to see any justificatory reason for passing the impugned order. Therefore, it is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to resume the proceedings from the stage at which it was interrupted on account of the passing of the impugned order. 23. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the respondents prays for a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 24. Therefore, it is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to resume the proceedings from the stage at which it was interrupted on account of the passing of the impugned order. 23. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the respondents prays for a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 24. Appreciating that the suit is of the 1995 vintage, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within an outer limit of two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of to day's order. 25. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. No order as to costs.