JUDGMENT : The challenge in this Original Petition is to the order dated 25.03.2017 in O.S.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the Original Suit. 2. The plaint schedule property belongs to the family of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 5 to 9. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are entitled to 1/6 share each and defendant Nos. 7 to 9 are together entitled to 1/6 share. Defendant No.1 is the Chamundeswari Devi Temple. Defendant No.2 is its Priest. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the office bearers of the temple. As per Partition Deed No.536/1975, the properties were partitioned and the mother of the sharers alienated 6 cents from A schedule item No.2 property to the temple. 3. The plaintiffs pleaded that joint possession has become practically difficult. They further pleaded that there is no boundary between the temple property and the plaint schedule property. Therefore, in the Original Suit, the plaintiffs prayed for partition of the property and fixation of boundary between their property and the temple property. 4. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 raised a contention that there is misjoinder of causes of action. 5. The question of misjoinder of causes of action was considered by the Court as a preliminary issue. The Court below found that there is misjoinder of causes of action, but there is no need for separate trial. 6. The finding of the Trial Court on the question of misjoinder of causes of action is under challenge in this Original Petition. 7. The plaintiffs seek two reliefs; (a) partition of the plaint schedule property based on the pleading that it is a co-ownership property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 5 to 9, (b) fixation of the boundary between the plaint schedule property and the temple property (property of Defendant No.1) 8. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 raised a contention that since the prayer for partition has nothing to do with them, the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It is further contended that the cause of action for fixation of boundary does not lie against the rest of the defendants. 9. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 raised a contention that since the prayer for partition has nothing to do with them, the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It is further contended that the cause of action for fixation of boundary does not lie against the rest of the defendants. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs being co-owners of the plaint schedule property, any co-owner may bring in a suit for fixation of boundary of the property with the adjacent property. 10. Order II Rule 3 deals with joinder of causes of action. Joinder of defendants is dealt with in Order I Rule 3. 11. Order I Rule 3 provides as under:- “ 3. Who may be joined as defendants. All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants 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 against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.” 12. As per Order I Rule 3, all persons may be joined as defendants in a suit against whom any right to relief exist, provided that such right is based on the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions against those persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative. Joinder of defendants may also be done, in cases where separate suits were brought against such persons, and common questions of law or fact arise. The intention of the provision is to avoid multiplicity of suits. 13. Order II Rule 3 of CPC deals with joinder of causes of action in cases where the plaintiff frames a suit against defendants against whom he claims to have a cause of action. 14. Order II Rule 3 of CPC reads thus:- “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 plaintiffs 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. (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 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.” 15. A conjoined reading of these two provisions indicate that the question of joinder of parties involves the joinder of causes of action. 16. A person is made a party in a suit because there is cause of action against him. When causes of action are joined, the parties are also joined. In Iswar Bhai C.Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera and another [ (1999) 3 SCC 457 ] , the Supreme Court has explained the principle contained in the provisions as follows:- “14.These two provisions, namely, Order 1 Rule 3 and Order 2 Rule 3 if read together indicate that the question of joinder of parties also involves the joinder of causes of action. The simple principle is that a person is made a party in a suit because there is a cause of action against him and when causes of action are joined, the parties are also joined.” 17. As per Order II Rule 3 of CPC, when causes of action are joined, it should exist against all the defendants joined as parties. Inasmuch as the causes of action in the present suit being facts relating to partition of co-ownership property and lack of boundary between the co- ownership property and the temple property, the causes of action joined cannot exist against all the defendants. If a separate suit was brought against defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the plaintiffs’ claim for partition would not lie. Similarly, a suit for fixation of the boundary between the plaint schedule property and the temple property would not lie against defendant Nos. 5 to 9. Therefore, there is misjoinder of causes of action. The finding of the Trial Court, therefore, requires no interference. 18. The Trial Court, also held that there is no need for separate trials and the causes of action may be tried together. 19. 5 to 9. Therefore, there is misjoinder of causes of action. The finding of the Trial Court, therefore, requires no interference. 18. The Trial Court, also held that there is no need for separate trials and the causes of action may be tried together. 19. Order I Rule 3A reads thus:- “3A. Power to order separate trials where joinder of defendants may embarrass or delay trial. Where it appears to the Court that any joinder of defendants may embarrass or delay the trial of the suit, the Court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interest of justice.” The principle is that a separate trial is required only when joinder of defendants may embarrass or delay the trial of the suit. On the facts of the case, the Trial Court held that joinder of the defendants will not embarrass or delay the trial. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that there is no need for separate trial also requires no interference. The Original Petition lacks merits and it stands dismissed.