ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH Vs. IVAN KAPPER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of defendants in a money suit and is directed against Order No. 17 dated May 7, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 3rd Court, Alipore in Money Suit No. 15 of 2002 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure ("Code") for rejection of the plaint.

(2.) Two plaintiffs (the plaintiff No.1 being the husband of the plaintiff No.2) filed the aforesaid money suit against the School Authorities for recovery of their retirement benefits as employees of the School. There is no dispute that the plaintiff No. 1 retired as a Superintendent of Boys' Home and the plaintiff No.2, as the Headmistress of the School. In the plaint they have made two separate schedules disclosing their separate dues and in paragraph 25 of the plaint, the specific averments are made that the respective right to relief had arisen out of the series of acts and transactions wherein the plaintiffs were jointly and separately involved and if the plaintiffs brought separate suits, common question of law and fact would have arisen. It is further stated that above and beyond, the plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendants, they are free to unite those causes of action against the defendants jointly.

(3.) After entering appearance in the suit, the School Authorities filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code on the ground that the two plaintiffs having been undisputedly employed by virtue of two different contracts, the causes of action of two plaintiffs were entirely different and as such, the suit was bad for misjoinder of plaintiffs as well as of causes of action. In other words, according to the defendants, the suit was bad for multifariousness.