PREM LALA NAHATA AND ANR. versus CHANDI PRASAD SIKARIA

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 02-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
J 
PREM LALA NAHATA AND ANR. 
v. 
CHANDI PRASAD SIKARIA 
FEBRUARY 2, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 99; Orders /, JI and Vll Rule 
ll(d) 
A 
B 
Misjoinder of plaintiff and cause of action-Nature and effect of- C 
Held-They are not a bar entertaining of suit as (i) they were only procedural 
(ii) defendant does not have an absolute right to contend that such a suit 
should not be proceeded with (iii) Court has liberty to treat plaint in such 
a case as relating to two suits (iv) Court was empowered to consolidate 
different suits on basis of common questions of law or fact. 
D 
Suit filed by mother and daughter together for recovery of two sums 
separately lent by them to defendant-Claim based on their transactions 
with defendant through another person-However, prior to that suit, defendant 
had filed two suits against them for recovery of amounts, wherein he pleaded 
thflt though money was paid to him, but as part of business transaction and E 
not a loan-These two suits withdrawn on order of Court to be tried with 
later suit of plaintiffs since common questions of fact and law arose therein-
At this stage, application for rejection of suit under Order Vil Rule 11 ( d) of 
Code on ground of misjoinder of plaintiff and cause of action-Maintainability 
of-Held-Plaintiff had only combined their respective claims which were in F 
nature of counter claims or cross suits to suits filed by defendant, ultimate 
question for decision in all suits being nature of transactions entered into 
by defendant with each of plaintiff-Three suits directed to be tired jointly 
since evidence would be common therein-It was not required that plaintiffs 
elect to proceed with suit with one of them as plaintiff and one claim-It was 
more so as two suits filed by defendant against then were withdrawan for a G 
joint trial, and convenience of trial did not warrant separating of causes of 
action. 
Interpretation of statutes-Consolidating statute-Held-It is to be 
construed by examining its language and by giving it its natural meaning 
261 
H 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 2 S.C.R. 
A uninfluenced by consideration derived from previous state of /aw-Object of 
consolidation is to collect law bearing upon particular subject and in bringing 
it upto date. 
B 
Words and phrases-Suit being "barred by any law"-fn context of 
Order Vil Rule ll(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
Appellants, mother and daughter, together filed a suit in High Court 
against respondent for recovery to two sums allegedly separately lent toi him 
by them. There claims were based on transactions they allegedly had with 
him through one MKN. However, prior to that suit, he had filed two filed two 
C suits for recovery of amounts allegedly due from them pleading that though 
money had been paid to him by them, it was part of a business transaction and 
not a loan. However, these two suits were withdrawn to be tried with the suit 
of appellant by order of Court on their application that common questions of 
fact and law arose therein and it would be in the interests of j'!stice to dispose 
of the three suits together. At this stage, respondent made an application for 
D rejection of the plaint of appellant under Order VII rule lt(d) of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of misjoinder of plaintiff as well as causes 
of action. The appellants resisted the application. The trial judge held that 
plaint could not be rejected as there was no law barring a suit for misjoinder 
of parties or a misjoinder of causes of action. The respondent filed an appeal 
challenging that order wherein Division Bench of High Court held that the 
E suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. However, instead of rejecting 
the plaint, opportunity was given to the appellants to elect to proceed with their 
suit confining it to claim of one of them and the transaction relied on by that 
plaintiff. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In a case where a plaint suffers from the defect of misjoinder 
of parties or misjoinder of causes of action either in terms of Order I Rule 1 
and Order I Rule 3 on the one hand, or Order II Rule 3 on the other, the Code 
itself indicates that the perceived defect does not make the suit one barred by 
G law or liable to rejection. This is clear from Rules 3A, 4 and 5 of Order I of 
the Code, and this is emphasised by Rule 9 of Order I of the Code which 
provides that no suit 

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