Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 89 (MAD)

. v. .

2018-01-04

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : C.V. Karthikeyan, J. 1. The Office has put up a note, regarding the maintainability of the suit and also whether the plaint in C.S. Diary No.38063 of 2017 can be instituted before this court. 2. The Plaintiff had filed the suit, seeking a judgment and decree, directing the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.29,06,500/- together with interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.19,00,000/- from the date of the plaint till realisation. While scrutinizing the papers, the Registry had found that the cause of action for the suit arose on the four different promissory notes, dated 28.10.2014, 20.11.2014, 25.11.2014 and 11.12.2014 for Rs.16,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively and stated that each of the promissory note contributes a separate cause of action and since none of them is above the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.25 lakhs, the Registry had returned the suit with the following endorsement:- “State as to how single suit can be filed for four promissory notes with different cause of action and in different dates-clarify.” 3. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff had re-presented the papers, with the following endorsement:- “There is a statute known as CPC in that read Order II Rule 3 which refers to joinder of cause of action. There is a direction Division Bench judgment in this regard, namely, AIR 1916 Lahore 363, wherein it has been held that the suit based on three promissory notes is maintainable subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.” 4. The matter was posted before this Court for maintainability. 5. This court heard Mr. Bijay Sundar, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. 6. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has relied on the decision reported in AIR 1916 Lahore 363 (Chiragh Din Vs. Bhagwan Das) wherein it was held as under:- “Order 2 Rule 3 of CPC permits a Plaintiff to combine in one suit against a Defendant several causes of action and the value of that suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is the aggregate value of all the causes of action comprised therein. It is no part of a court's duty to scrutinize every item included in a suit in order to determine whether any portions of that suit were triable by a Court of Small Causes. In this case, the suit was properly framed and included several causes of action against the same Defendant. It is no part of a court's duty to scrutinize every item included in a suit in order to determine whether any portions of that suit were triable by a Court of Small Causes. In this case, the suit was properly framed and included several causes of action against the same Defendant. That suit regarded as one single suit was certainly not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction in respect of every part of the suit.” 7. Moreover, the Original Side of the High Court of Madras is primarily governed by the Original Side Rules and by the Letters Patent. Clause 14 of the Letters Patent is as follows:- 14. Joinder of several causes of action:- And we do further ordain that where Plaintiff has several causes of action against the Defendant, such causes of action not being for land or other immovable property and the said High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action, it shall be lawful for the said High Court to call on the Defendant to show cause why the several causes action should not be joined together in one suit, and to make such order for trial of the same as the High Court shall seem fit.” 8. In the present case, the suit has been instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,06,500/-. The suit has been for a judgment and decree as follows:- (a) to pay a sum of Rs.29,06,500/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs.19,00,000/- from the date of the plaint till realisation. (b) Order costs of the suit and (c) pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit, proper, necessary and render justice. 9. It is seen that the principal amount is Rs.19,00,000/-. With inclusion of interest, the amount comes to Rs.29,06,500/-. The pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court is Rs.25,00,000/- and above. In the present case, the principal amount Rs.19,00,000/- is sub divided into four promissory notes said to have been executed by the Defendant as follows:- (a) Rs.16,00,000/- on 28.10.2014 (b) Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.11.2014 (c) Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.11.2014 (d) Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.12.2014 10. The sentence “High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action”, has been misunderstood by the Registry as having pecuniary jurisdiction. The sentence “High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action”, has been misunderstood by the Registry as having pecuniary jurisdiction. What the statue actually means is that the Court should have territorial jurisdiction to try the relief claimed in the cause of action. 11. In 1993 2 LW 453 (Food Corporation of India Vs. Mayavaram Financial Syndicate) it has been held in similar circumstances as follows:- “The High Court has jurisdiction to join together several causes of action each valued below Rs.25 lakhs but valued at above Rs.25 lakhs in the aggregate. Clause 14 is not a provision wherein joinder of several causes of action is contemplated to amalgamate them to enhance the valuation so as to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. In fact, this clause has made no reference to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. All that it says is, 'High Court shall have original jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground that its value was raised by misjoinder of causes of action, is misconceived to the extent that unless shown to be less than Rs.100/- falling within the jurisdiction of Small Cause Court the High Court's original jurisdiction would extend to suits of every variety, if conditions under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent are satisfied. ” 12. In the present case, if we are to examine the present case from a different angle, Order 2 Rule 3 of CPC stipulates that the Plaintiff has to combine in one suit against one Defendant several causes of action. If that is done, then the value of the relief, i.e. Rs.29,06,500/- is more than the pecuniary jurisdictional limit of the City Civil Court, Chennai. If, on the other hand, the Plaintiff were to file separate suits on the basis of each promissory note, then the Defendant could reasonably take recourse to the provisions under Order 2 Rule 3 of CPC and claim that he suffers owing to the multiplicity of suits. Therefore, the present suit has been correctly laid and since this Court has primarily territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues, I hold that joinder of causes of action by the Plaintiff is perfectly in order and that the plaint is maintainable before this Court. Consequently, the Registry is directed to number the suit in C.S. Diary No.38063 of 2017, if it is otherwise in order.