2007 (2) TMI 696 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery of a sum due - liability to be repay with interest and damages - misjoinder of parties or a misjoinder of causes of action - rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code - HELD THAT - In the present suit all that the appellants have done is to combine their respective claims which are in the nature of counter claims or cross suits to the suits filed by the respondent. The ultimate question for decision in all the suits is the nature of the transactions that was entered into by the respondent with each of the appellants and the evidence that has to be led in both the suits is regarding the nature of the respective transactions entered into by the respondent with each of the appellants. To a great extent the evidence would be common and there will be no embarrassment if the causes of action put forward by the appellants in the present suit are tried together especially in the context of the two suits filed by the respondent against them and withdrawn for a joint trial. In the case on hand therefore even assuming that there was a defect of misjoinder of causes of action in the plaint filed by the appellants it is not a case where convenience of trial warrants separating of the causes of action by trying them separately. The three suits have to be jointly tried and since the evidence according to us would be common in any event the Division Bench was in error in directing the appellants to elect to proceed with one of the plaintiffs and one of the claims. We do not think that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case one of the appellants should be asked to file a fresh plaint so as to put forward her claim. Even if such a plaint were to be filed it will be a clear case for a joint trial of that plaint with the present suit and the two suits filed by the respondent. In any event therefore the Division Bench was not correct in interfering with the decision of the learned single judge. The effect of withdrawal of the two suits filed by the respondent against the appellants for a joint trial has not been properly appreciated by the Division Bench. So on the facts of this case the decision of the Division Bench is found to be unsustainable and the course adopted by it unwarranted. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the nature of the pleadings in the three suits that are now before the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court it would be just and proper to try them together and dispose them of in accordance with law for which an order has already been made. A joint trial of the three suits based on the evidence to be taken in our view would be the proper course under the circumstances. We therefore allow this appeal and reversing the decision of the Division Bench restore the decision of the learned single judge. We request the learned single judge of the High Court to try and dispose off the three suits expeditiously in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of sums allegedly due.
2. Misjoinder of parties and causes of action.
3. Maintainability of the appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
4. Application of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Consolidation of suits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Recovery of Sums Allegedly Due:
The appellants, mother and daughter, filed a suit (C.S. No. 29 of 2003) in the Calcutta High Court seeking recovery of sums allegedly lent to the respondent. Appellant No. 1 claimed Rs. 10,93,863/- and Appellant No. 2 claimed Rs. 10,90,849/- with interest. The transactions were allegedly conducted through Mahendra Kumar Nahata, husband of Appellant No. 1 and father of Appellant No. 2. The respondent had repudiated their claims and filed counter suits for recovery of amounts against the appellants.

2. Misjoinder of Parties and Causes of Action:
The respondent filed an application (G.A. No. 4458 of 2003) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the plaint should be rejected due to misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The trial judge dismissed the application, stating that misjoinder does not bar a suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. The Division Bench, however, held that the suit was bad for misjoinder and directed the appellants to elect to proceed with one of the plaintiffs and one of the claims.

3. Maintainability of the Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent:
The appellants questioned the maintainability of the respondent's appeal before the Division Bench. The court referred to the precedent in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. Vs. M.E. Sea Success I, which allowed appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent even in cases where the trial judge refuses to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The court accepted this position for the purpose of the current case.

4. Application of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The court analyzed whether a suit bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d). It concluded that misjoinder is a procedural defect, not a substantive bar to the suit. The Code of Civil Procedure allows the court to manage such defects without rejecting the plaint. The court emphasized that procedural rules are meant to facilitate justice, not obstruct it.

5. Consolidation of Suits:
The court noted that the appellants had moved for the withdrawal and joint trial of the respondent's suits (Money Suit No. 585 of 2001 and Money Suit No. 69 of 2002) with C.S. No. 29 of 2003. The trial judge had ordered the consolidation, which became final. The Supreme Court observed that joint trials are permissible and practical when common questions of law or fact arise. The evidence in all three suits would be common, making a joint trial appropriate.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversing the Division Bench's decision and restoring the trial judge's order. The court directed a joint trial of the three suits, emphasizing that procedural objections like misjoinder should not obstruct the course of justice. The learned single judge of the High Court was requested to expedite the trial and disposal of the suits in accordance with the law.