PARASHRAMSAO Vs. HIRALAL S/O. ADKU PATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURANIK J 1. The plaintiffs and the defendant are co-sharers in two villages in the Bhandara district, viz. Mohali and Kalamna. The defendant is the lambardar of both these villages. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for rendition of village profit accounts for certain years with respect to both these villages. The defendant pleaded that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. The Court framed a preliminary issue and held as under This is a suit for rendition of accounts of two villages, mouza Mohali and Kalmna. The causes of action joined in the case, cannot be conveniently tried. I therefore order under Order 2, Rule 6 that the plaintiff should elect within fifteen days from date as to with which of the causes of action, he wishes to proceed. An opportunity to amend the plaint is therefore given. His failure to avail of the same within time, would be visited with dismissal of the suit with costs. It is against this order that the present application for revision is filed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) ORDER 2, Rule 3, Civil P.C., permits a plaintiff to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly. Joinder of these two causes of action in one suit is thus permitted by Order 2, Rule 3, Civil P.C. The Court, however, thinks that the trial of these two causes of action in one suit would be inconvenient. It is not indicated anywhere in the order where the inconvenience lies. Ordinarily, such suits for village profit by co-sharers in the one or more villages wherein the defendant is the lambardar are tried by the Judge together without any inconvenience. It is true that with respect to each village there will be separate issues, and the mere fact that separate issues have to be framed with respect to each village does not necessarily lead to inconvenience in the trial. But even assuming that there was some inconvenience in the trial of the two causes of action together the order of the Court calling on the plaintiffs to elect one of the two causes of action and asking them to make the election within a particular time, failure whereof would result in the dismissal of their suit, is an order which is not warranted by the Civil P.C.

(3.) THE order of the Court below asking the plaintiffs to elect one of the two causes of action and the further order to penalize the plaintiffs for not electing is without jurisdiction. I set aside the order under revision and order that the Court should proceed with the suit, and if it feels embarrassed may order separate trials in the same suit or may make Such other order as may be expedient, but in the same Suit, and not call upon the plaintiffs to file a separate suit. The application is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 20.