Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 66 (JHR)

Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant

2013-01-11

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2013
Order Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. In this L.P.A., office raised objection with respect to the maintainability of L.P.A. The office took the view that the petitioners, who were four in numbers, are claiming their respective gratuity amount are required to pay separate court fees, though they have unitedly filed one writ petition. We are ignoring the objection of the maintainability, in view of the reasons mentioned hereinbelow. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioners jointly were claiming their gratuity amount and they were denied gratuity amount because of occupying their different quarters. The petitioners are seeking relief against the same respondents. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even if there are several cause of actions, in view of the principles laid down in Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff may unite and file one suit when the defendant is the same. It is, therefore, submitted that the different reliefs could have been granted to the writ petitioner by joining hands by filing one writ petition and in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Vijay Thakur and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another, W.P.(S) 2928 of 2008 dated 20th September, 2008, and hence, the office objection is not tenable. However, learned single Judge held that in the facts of this case the principle as laid down in Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable. Learned single Judge held that there are four petitioners, who are having independents claims in respect of their independent gratuity and are in possession of different official quarters allotted to them separately, cannot be permitted to join in one writ petition to save the court fees. Therefore, in view of the facts of the case principle of Vijay Thakur (supra) was not applied. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently submitted that the Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was misinterpreted by learned single Judge and learned single Judge held that if there are several plaintiffs having same and identical cause of actions, against the same set of defendants in that event they may unite and may file one suit. 4. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently submitted that the Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was misinterpreted by learned single Judge and learned single Judge held that if there are several plaintiffs having same and identical cause of actions, against the same set of defendants in that event they may unite and may file one suit. 4. We are of the considered opinion that the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is academic in nature in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners amended the writ petition by confining it to petitioner no. 1 only and other petitioners will file separate writ petitions, therefore, in view of above, the question was absolutely academic. We examine the merit of the case also whereby petitioner has challenged the reasons recorded by learned single Judge holding that in fact present petitioner cannot file writ petition unitedly. The Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :- 3. 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 plaintiff 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. 5. Order II Rule 3 clearly indicate that in all the situation, several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and plaintiffs having cause 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. It also indicate that 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. Therefore, we have to see whether it is a case where the petitioners (plaintiffs) have same cause of action and they are jointly interested against the same of defendants. The plaintiffs are different is admitted position. Therefore, we have to see whether it is a case where the petitioners (plaintiffs) have same cause of action and they are jointly interested against the same of defendants. The plaintiffs are different is admitted position. The plaintiffs are occupying different quarters. The plaintiffs are claiming their different gratuity amount. Therefore, they are claiming right independently, and none of the co-petitioners has any common right over each other's claim. Virtually nothing is common to petitioners. Therefore, learned single Judge rightly held that in the facts of the case, judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioners has no application. 6. In view of the above reasons also in addition to reasons given by learned single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the L.P.A., which is accordingly dismissed.