ISWAR BHAI C. PATEL@ BACHU BHAI PATEL versus HARIHAR BEHARA AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1097 · Decided: 16-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ISWAR BHAI C. PATEL@ BACHU BHAI PATEL 
A 
v. 
HARIHAR BEHARA AND ANR. 
MARCH 16, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.) 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 : 
Or. 1 R. 3 and Or. 2 R. ~Joinder of parties and causes of action-Ob-
ject of-Held, reading of both Or. 1 R. 3 and Or. 2 R.3 together indicated C 
that the question of joinder of pa1ties involved joinder of causes of ac-
tion-The basic principle is that when the causes of action are joined the 
parties are also to be joined. 
Or. 1 R. 3 and Or. 2 R. 3 read with Section 96-Appeal lies against one 
of two defendants against whom suit not decreed-Prayer in suit showing that D 
decree claimed against the defendants jointly or severally-Suit decreed 
against only one defendant-Appeal filed against the second def end ant before 
the High Court-Held, High Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit in 
its entirety and passing a decree against the other defendant also-Orissa 
Money Lenders Act, Section 8. 
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114--R. 2 advancing a loan to the appel-
lant at his instance by way of a cheque from the bank account of R. 1, a 
money lender, whose account R. 2 was authorised to operate-Cheque en-
cashed by appellant-Not controverted by the appellant-Appellant not enter-
E 
ing into the witness box nor presented himself for cross-examination-Held, 
F 
an adverse presumption had to be drawn against the appellant on the basis 
of principles contained in illustration (g) of Section 114-Evidence--Doctrine 
of adverse presumption. 
R. 1/PlaintitT was a registered money lender who used to advance 
loan through a current account in a bank through his father R. 2, who was 
authorised to operate the bank account of R. 1. The appellant was Defen-
dant· 1 in a suit against recovery on loans along with damages. When the 
plaintiff's money lending licence got expired, he did not get it renewed. 
Meanwhile the authority of R. 2 to operate the bank account continued. R. 
G 
2 on the request of the appellant, issued a cheque to him and the same was H 
1097 
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A encashed by the appellant. Later on, when appellant failed to return back 
the said amount to R. 2 in spite of repeated reminders, a suit filed by R. 
1 against the appellant and R. 2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit 
against the appellant but decreed it against R. 2 primarily on the ground 
that the appellant had not approached R. 1 directly for the money and that 
B R. 2 could not be treated as the agent of R. 1. In appeal, the High Court 
modified the decree and decreed the suit against the appellant as well as 
against R. 2. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that R-1 had no right to appeal in 
the High Court as the Trial Court had already decreed the suit which was 
c his prayer in the suit. 
Dismissing the appeal with costs, this Court. 
HELD : 1.1. The purpose of Order 1 Rule 3 is to avoid a multiplicity 
of suits. This Rule, to some extent, also deals with the joinder of cause:; of 
D action inasmuch as when the plaintiff frames his suit,. he impleads pers ~ns 
as defendants against whom he claims to have a cause of action. Joinder of 
causes of action has been provided for in Order 2 Rule 3. These 1two 
provisions if read together indicatt:: that the question of joinder of parties 
also involves the joinder of causes of action. The simple principle is that a 
E 
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. 
[1103-C; 1102··GJ 
2. In the instant case, the appellant has abstained from the witness 
box and had not made any statement on oath in support of his pleading set 
F 
out in the written statement. 1\n adverse inference has, therefore, to be 
drawn against him under clause (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 
Since it was specifically stated by respondent No. 2 in his 'statement on oath 
that it was the instance of the appellant that he had issued the cheque on 
the account of respondent No. 1 and the appellant, admittedly, had en-
cashed that cheque, an inference has to be drawn against the appellant that 
G what he stated in the written statement was not correct. In these dr-
cumstances, the High Court is fully justified in decreeing the suit of respon-
dent No. 1 in its entirety and passing a decree against the appellant a1so. 
[1106-H; 1107-A-B] 
Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr., AIR (1927) JPC, 
H 230; Kir

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.