A.N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has sought for the quashing of the order dated 11 -4 -1980 passed by Respondent No. 2 and the order dated 12 -8 -81 passed by Respondent No. 1.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this petition are these s Respondent No. 3 filed a suit titled as Sri Chandra Bhan Verma v. B.K. Jain which was registered as Suit No. 412 of 1978 in the court of Munsif Aligarh, against the Petitioner for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 9248/ -, Rs. 5500/ - being the amount of loans and Rs. 3748/ - being the amount of interest. The allegation in the plaint was that the Petitioner had borrowed the total sum of Rs. 8500/ - by executing pronotes for various sums on different dates (Rs. 1500/ - on 1 -7 -1972; Rs. 1500/ - on 6 -2 -1975; Rs. 1500/ - on 6 -3 -75 and Rs. 1000/ - on 21 -3 -1975). The Petitioner pleaded that the court of Munsif Koil, Aligaih, had no jurisdiction to try the suit, inter alia, pleading that Instead of four suits which ought to have been filed in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Allgarh, only one suit had been filed. Respondent No. 2 framed a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. This issue was decided against the Petitioner and it was held that the court (Respondent No. 2) had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The Petitioner preferred a revision against the aforesaid order dated 11 -4 -1980 passed by Respondent No. 2. Such a revision was also dismissed by Respondent No. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 12 -8 -1981. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 11 -4 -1980 and 12 -8 -1981 the Petitioner has filed the present petition. The case of the Petitioner is that Order 2 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure permits joinder of causes of action but such joinder of causes of action cannot be done in order to oust the jurisdiction of some other court. It was contended that the jurisdiction to pass a decree for the recovery of the amount vested in the court of Judge, Small Causes, as contemplated by Sections 15 and 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act which alone had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the amount of loan borrowed by the Petitioner from Respondent No. 3 from time to time. It was submitted that Sections 15 and 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act prevailed over Order 2 Rules 2 and 3 Code of Civil Procedure and hence suit for the consolidated amount as filed by Respondent No. 3 in the court of Respondent No. 2 was not maintainable. On the other hand, on behalf of Respondent No. 3 it was submitted that as provided under Section 21(2) Code of Civil Procedure the objector has to satisfy two conditions viz. firstly that the court had no jurisdiction and secondly that there bad been a consequent failure of justice. It was contended on behalf of Respondent No. 3 that in the instant case no such plea was taken nor it was shown as to how any prejudice would be caused to the objector. It was further submitted that Rule 3 of Order 2 Code of Civil Procedure has to be read together with Rule. 2. It was also submitted that the very object of Order 2 Rules 2 and 3 Code of Civil Procedure was in fact to prevent multiplicity of suits and hence the suit was fully competent and maintainable.
(3.) THE controversy in the present petition lies in a narrow compass whether the courts below erred in law in regard to the applicability of Order 2 Rules 2 and 3 Code of Civil Procedure.;