KANHAIYALAL Vs. KESHODAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the Trial Judge holding that the suit was bad for multifariousness. He gave the plaintiff an option to elect one of the two defendants against whom he wanted to continue the suit

(2.) THE allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff Kanhaiyalal purchased the suit house in which Keshodas and Badshahmal, the two defendants, had been residing as tenants of the vendor. The plaintiff gave them notices of eviction, but they did not vacate. Paragraph 7 of the plaint deals exclusively with the cause of action against the first defendant while paragraph 8 dealt with the cause of action against the second defendant. The plaintiff admitted that he was unaware of the date of the commencement of their tenancy. Defendant No. 1 was paying Rs. 2/8/- per month and the defendant No. 2, Rs. 10/- per month as rent. Different reliefs were claimed against the two defendants separately.

(3.) SHRJ Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff relies on Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is urged that this rule when read with Order 2, Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code enables a plaintiff to bring a Civil suit against more than one defendant, if any common question of law or fact is involved. The argument of Shri Gupta is that the fact of the purchase of the house by the plaintiff is common with regard to both the defendants. Similarly, the dispute, whether the plaintiff genuinely requires the house for his own residence is also common. I am unable to accept this contention.