SM. NAGENDRA BALA DEBI Vs. PROVASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the suit in the present instance is bad on the ground of multifariousness, that is, misjoinder of parties and causes of action and is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The learned Subordinate Judge framed several issues in this case but the only effective decision that he has given is on the issue of multifariousness and he has dismissed the suit on that ground expressly stating that it was unnecessary for him in the circumstances of this case to 'discuss' the other issues. In our opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge is right in his decision that the suit is bad on account of multifariousness and, accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed subject to the observations which will be made below. The reasons for pur view will be found in the discussions which will presently follow.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to the present appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs -appellants were the proprietors of Separate Accounts Nos. 314/1 and 314/2/1 of the parent Touzi No. 314 of the Collectorate of 24 Parganas at the relevant time. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were the proprietors of Separate -Accounts Nos. 314/5 and 314/8, Defendant No. 5 was the proprietor of Separate Account No. 314/7, Defendant No. 6 was the proprietor of Separate Account No. 314/9, Defendants Nos. 7 to 9 were the proprietors of Separate Account No. 314/10, defendant No. 10 was the proprietor of Separate Account No. 314/11, Defendants Nos. 11 and 12 were the proprietors of Separate Account No. 314/12, Defendants Nos. 13 to 16 were the proprietors of Separate Account No. 314/14, Defendants Nos. 17 and 18 were the proprietors of Separate Account No. 314/15 and Defendant No. 19 was the proprietor of the residuary Separate Account of the parent Touzi (No. 314) which was numbered as 314/R. S. According to the plaintiffs, they also acquired subsequently Separate Accounts Nos. 314/7, 314/9 and 314/15, but that is not material for our present purpose as this acquisition took place after the relevant point of time involved in the present case.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was bad for multifariousness and, although he made certain observations with regard to the other issues arising on the facts of this particular case, he did not, as already stated, 'discuss' and, therefore, did not decide any of the said other issues in the case. Having regard to his finding that the suit was bad for multifariousness, the suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge and against that decision the present appeal has been taken by the plaintiffs.