PARAS RAM AND OTHERS Vs. ZILA PARISHAD, SITAPUR AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-7-37
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 30,1965

Paras Ram And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Zila Parishad, Sitapur And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAJOR S.S. KHANNA V/S. BRIG. F.J. DILLON [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N.U. Beg, J. - (1.)In this case a large number of Plaintiffs brought a suit. All these Plaintiffs were assessed under Sec. 114 of the District Boards Act. The vires of Sec. 114 was challenged by all of them. They accordingly, joined it bringing the present suit. The trial court was of opinion that all of then could not join in the present suit and there was a misjoinder of causes of action. It, accordingly, ordered the Plaintiffs to rectify this defect in the plaint. Thereafter, they have filed the present revision petition.
(2.)Learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that Order 1 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where any common question of law or fact arises in a case, it is open to persons in whose cases the said question would arise to join together as Plaintiffs in bringing a suit. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been a misjoinder of the Plaintiff, so far as Order 1, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure is concerned. I agree with the said contention. So far as the misjoinder of causes of action is concerned Order II, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure provides that it is open to a number of Plaintiffs having different cause of action to unite them in a suit if they are all interested in respect of them against the same Defendant. In the present case there can be No. manner of doubt that all the Plaintiffs are jointly interested against the same Defendant in seeking a common relief.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the opposite parties also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the order is not revisable. In view, however, of the Supreme Court's decision in the Case of Major S.S. Khanna v/s. Brig. F.J. Dillon (1) (AIR 1964 S.C. 297). I am of opinion that the order would be revisable because, in any case, it can be treated as a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by the trial Court. In the present case if the plaint is sot amended as ordered by the Court it is bound to be rejected. Non compliance with the order would, therefore, result in the dismissal of the entire suit.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.