Order II Rule 3 CPC Does Not Compel A Plaintiff To Join Two Or More Causes Of Action In A Single Suit: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not compel a plaintiff to join two or more causes of action in a single suit.

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 bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.

The court, however, added that the consequences of not joining all claims arising from a cause of action may be fatal to a plaintiff in a future litigation.

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit for partition. The High Court dismissed the defendant's appeal. In appeal, one of the contentions raised by the defendant- appellant was that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there was non-joinder of necessary parties. To this, the plaintiff submitted that the cause of action for the present suit is based on the rights of the plaintiff to the separate and self acquired properties of Sh. R. M. Patil.

Order II Rule 3 CPC- Joinder of causes of action

Order II Rule 3 deals with joinder of causes of action. It reads as follows: (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit."

Referring to Order I Rule 3 and Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court observed that there is no warrant to complain against the non-impleadment of the appellant's uncle or his successors in interest. In this context, the bench observed:

"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."

Rejecting the contention raised by the appellant, the court further observed : 

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

Click here to Read/Download Judgment