BHANWAR LAL Vs. U I T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against trial court's order dated 27 -9 -80 in so far as it relates to the decision on issue Nos. 2, 7 and 8 only. In substance, these three issues together relate to the defendants objection of misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of actions. The trial court has upheld these objections, Hence this revision by the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE plaintiffs claim to be owners in possession of different plots of land sold to them by one Dalpat Raj by separate sale deeds, executed on 26 -2 -74. The title of plaintiff transferor Dalpat Raj is based on a patta granted to him by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur, the predecessor in interest of the defendant Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. The plaintiffs alleged that on 18 -10 -75 the defendant attempted to dispossess of the plaintiffs from these plots of land alleging that the plaintiffs were trespassers, to whom no valid title was convened by their transferor Dalpatraj. On this basis, the plaintiffs have claimed an injunction to restrain the defendant from dispossessing them from these plots.

(3.) RULE 1 of Order 1, CPC is an enabling provision which may be resorted to by several plaintiffs if they satisfy the requirement of this provision. Rule 1 thereafter, empowers the court to order separate trials over where several plaintiffs can join in one suit as provided in Rule 1. The court has, therefore, a discretion to separate the trials according to Rule 2 if it is of the opinion that the joinder of plaintiffs may embarrass or delay the trial of the suit. There is no dispute that common questions arise for decision in respect of each of these plaintiffs so that if separate suits had been filed by them instead of joining in one suit, then those suits could legitimately have been consolidated for trial and common evidence could have been recorded. The question, therefore, is whether even on these facts it can be said that the joinder of these plaintiffs in one suit is defective.