- (1.) THIS is a revision petition filed on behalf of the plaintiffs against an order of the Munsif at Behror dated the 3rd of May 1949, by which he has directed both the plain-tiffs to file separate suits against the defendant.
(2.) THERE are two temples of Thakurji Sriji one at Kherli and the other at Narbera. The defendant Jagannath Das is the priest of both the temples and he looks after their Puja. The Administration of both the temples is at present vasted in the Department Court of the Wards. This suit has been brought by the Department of the Court of Wards, on behalf of both the idols of Thakurji Sriji against the defendant who is a priest of both of them for a declaration that the agricultural lands entered in the Revenue papers in the name of the defendant Jagannath Das belonged to the plaintiffs The Munsif has held that this is a case of mis-joinder of the plaintiffs on the ground that the causes of action of both the plaintiffs are separate and distinct from each other. It has been pleaded on behalf of the plaintiffs that different causes of action of different plaintiffs can lawfully be joined in one suit, provided some common question of law or fact would arise in them. The issues in the cases of both the plaintiffs in the present case being one and the same, it is claimed 'hat the order of the Munsif is illegal. He has refused to exercise his jurisdiction and therefore an order under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is desired by the plaintiffs. It may be observed that a suit cannot be treated as bad in law for misjoinder of the plaintiffs simply on the ground that their causes of action are distinct if there arise some common question of law or fact. Order 1 Rule 1 C. P. C. provides that all persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs, in whom 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 whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, where if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. In A. I. R. 1936 Cal. 650 Mitter J has held that Order 1 Rule 1 C. P. C. applies not only to the joinder of the plaintiffs but also to the joinder of the causes of action in one suit if some common question of law or fact would arise. In that case the defendant was the agent of two sets of principals appointed at different times and by different acts and the principals sued him for rendition of accounts. Having regard to the terms of agencies it was held that some common questions of fact and law were bound to arise. It was, therefore, decided that the principals could join their causes of action in one suit, there being no question of misjoinder or parties. The position in the present case is a similar one. The causes of action of both the plaintiffs are distinct but the questions in dispute between each plaintiff and the defendant are almost one and the same. In case both the suits of both the plaintiffs are tried separately the same evidence shall have to be produced in both the suits separately, which would mean unnecessary expenses to the parties and waste of the valuable time of the court. In view of the decision in 1936 Cal. 650 the order of the Munsif obviously is wrong. He has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by refusing to proceed with the trial of the case, unless both the suits were separately instituted. This, therefore, is a fit case for making an order under sec. 115 C. P. C. directing the Munsif to proceed with the trial of the case. This revision petition is accepted, and the order of the Munsif dated the 3rd of May 1949 is vacated. The Munsif is directed to proceed with the trial of the case of both the plaintiffs in the same proceedings. . ;