PEARLITE LINERS EMPLOYEES AND ANCILLARY UNITS HOUSE BUILDING, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI VENKYA NAIKA Vs. SMT. JAYA S. RAO W/O SREEPADA RAO EMPLOYED IN CORPORATION BANK AND K.P.T.C.L. REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1/plantiff has filed a suit against Petitioner and Respondent No. 2/Defendants 1 and 2, seeking decree for recovery of damages of Rs. 25,827/ -. Claim made against the Defendant No. 1 is for Rs. 15,427/ - and the claim made against Defendant No. 2 is for Rs. 10,400/ -. The Defendants have filed separate written statements, wherein it was contended that, the suit is bad for mis -joinder of parties and mis -joinder of causes of action and that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Based on the pleadings, issues and additional issues were raised. Issue Nos. 2, 4 and 5 reads as follows: Whether the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? Whether the suit is bad for mis -joinder of cause of action? Whether the suit is bad for mis -joinder of parties? All the issues were answered in the affirmative. Finding that, the amount claimed is less than Rs. 25,000/ -, it was held that, the suit should be filed in Court of Small Causes and hence, it was ordered for return of the plaint for presentation before the jurisdictional court. It was also held that, suit is bad for mis -joinder of parties, and cause of action.

(2.) AGGRIEVED , the Plaintiff filed Misc. Appeal No. 07/2008 under Order 43 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure Maintainability of appeal was questioned. The appellate court raised the following points for consideration:

(3.) SRI G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent No 1/Plaintiff, on the other hand firstly contended that, Rule 3 of Order 2 Code of Civil Procedure provides for the Plaintiff to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly and the jurisdiction of the court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject -matters at the date of institution of the suit. Secondly, the suit is one for recovery of damages of more than Rs. 25,000/ - and it is the Civil Court which has jurisdiction to try the suit and not the Court of Small Causes as had been erroneously held by the trial court. Thirdly, the cause of action for the suit arose against the Defendant No. 1 on 16.12.1989 when the Defendant No. 1 made an illegal claim and the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 14,554/ - under protest on 25.09.1999 and against the Defendant No. 2 on 16.07.1999 when it demanded for NOC from the Defendant No. 1 for giving power sanction and since the claim against the two Defendants are joint and several -, the suit was instituted. Fourthly, since the plaint was erroneously ordered to be returned in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal as provided was instituted and the appellate court having examined the record has correctly decided the appeal.