PUJARI CHIKKANNA Vs. G THIMMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure-E) passed by the Court of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 8642/ 1995.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed the suit against the respondents for the recovery of suit schedule A, B and C properties from the respondents-1, 2 and 3 respectively. The matter was set down for arguments on the closure of evidence by both sides. At that juncture, the respondents prayed for an order on additional Issue No. 1. which reads as follows:

(3.) It is this order of the Trial Court, which is being assailed before me by Sri Chandan S. Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. He submits that there is no provision for the return of the plaint under Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC. He further submits that the provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 6 of CPC can be passed only if the joinder of causes of action in one suit is embarrassing a party or delaying the trial or causing inconvenience. In the instant case, none of these conditions are present. He further submits that, if the plaint has to be rejected, it is only by scanning the averments contained in the plaint i.e., the Court is not required to look into the defence taken in the written statement while examining the maintainability of the suit. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mayar (H.K) Ltd. and Ors. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors., 2006 AIR(SC) 1828. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment, is extracted herein below: