Order II Rule 3 CPC Does Not Compel A Plaintiff To Join Two Or More Causes Of Action In A Single Suit
Case: B. R. Patil vs Tulsa Y. Sawkar
Coram: Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy
Case No.: CA 2652-2654 OF 2013
Court Observation: “On the cause of action in this case, there is no warrant to complain against the non-impleadment of the appellant’s uncle or his successors in interest. We may also point out that Order II Rule 3 does not compel a plaintiff to join two or more causes of action in a single suit. The failure to join together all claims arising from a cause of action will be visited with consequences proclaimed in Order II Rule 2. Order II Rule 3 permits the plaintiff to join together different causes of action. No doubt it is a different matter that if there is a misjoinder of causes of action, the power of the court as also the right of the parties to object are to be dealt with in accordance with law which is well settled….”
….The Code of Civil Procedure indeed permits a plaintiff to join causes of action but it does not compel a plaintiff to do so. The consequences of not joining all claims arising from a cause of action may be fatal to a plaintiff and we are not in this case to predicate for what would happen in a future litigation.” We have no quarrel with the proposition that the non-joining of necessary parties is fatal but in the facts of this case, on the cause of action which is projected in the plaint and the schedule of properties which has been made by the plaintiffs, we would not think that the non-joinder of the uncle of the appellant or his legal representatives would imperil the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
Previous Posts
Citizen Has Right To Criticize Government As Long As He Does Not Incite People To Violence: Supreme Court in Vinod Dua Case Download Judgement
