1|Page Joinder of Causes of Action

Order 1, Rule 3 and Order 2 Rule 3, if read together indicate that the
question of joinder of parties also involves joinder of causes of action. The
simple principle is that a person is made a party in his suit because there is
a cause of action against him and when actions are joined, the parties are
also joined.1 It is to be read subject to the provisions of Rule 4-5 below as is
shown by the words save as otherwise provided. It is also to be read
subject to the provisions of order 1 rule 1-3. The frame of a suit may not be
supported by this rule, and yet it may be justified by order1 rule1, order1
rule3. Rule 6&7 of this order are to be read with this rule. When the
conditions laid down in the rule are satisfied, the suit is maintainable
without regard to the question of convenience or inconvenience.

Section 15 and 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act 1887 take out
the power of joinder of causes of action from the operation of this sub-rule.
Joinder of different cause of action is permissible only if the Court is trying
them has jurisdiction in respect of all causes of action. Hence, a cause of
action exclusively triable by a small cause court cannot be joined with
another cause of action in respect of which a civil court has jurisdiction,
since the latter court has no jurisdiction to try a cause exclusively triable by
small cause court.

The object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of suits. The underlying

principle is that a defendant is not to be vexed twice for one and the same
cause of action

1
Ishwar Bhai C Patel v. Harihar Behra (1999) 2 LRI 36.
2|Page Joinder of Causes of Action

CAUSE OF ACTION

Cause of action may be described as “a bundle of essential facts, which it is

necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed”. A cause of action
is the foundation of a suit. It must be antecedent to the institution of a suit
and on the basis of it the suit must have been filed. If a plaint does not
disclose a cause of action, a court will reject such plaint.

Rule 3 contemplates 4 kind of situations :

i. ONE PLAINTIFF, ONE DEFENDANT AND SEVERAL CAUSES OF

ACTION

Where there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, the plaintiff is at
liberty to unite in the same suit several causes of action. But if it appears to
the court that the joinder of causes of action may embarrass or delay the
trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the court may order separate trials.2

For example, where the plaintiff is owner of a registered trademark and

copyright, he can file a combined suit, claiming relief for breach of both
these rights.3

In a case, where the plaintiff filed one suit on the basis of same cause of
action alleging breach of contract on the part of defendants entitling
plaintiff to claim refund of security deposit, loss of profit for work left
incomplete on account of termination of contract and enhanced rate of
work done during extended period of contract, it was held that since the
plaintiff prayed for three claims arising from breach of same contract, he

2
Order 2, Rule 6.
3
Glaxo Operations UK Ltd v. Samrat Pharmaceuticals AIR 1984 Del 265.
3|Page Joinder of Causes of Action

could not have filed three separate suits in view of the provisions of Code of
Civil Procedure.4

ii. JOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS AND CAUSES OF ACTION

Where there are two or more plaintiffs and several cause of action, the
plaintiff may join such cause of action in one suit against the same
defendant if they all are jointly interested. But this provision must be read
with Order 1 Rule 1. Thus, where there are two or more plaintiffs and two
or more cause of action, they may be joined in one suit only if the following
two conditions are fulfilled:

1) The cause of action must have arisen from the same act or
transaction; and
2) Common questions of law or fact must have been involved.

Therefore, where the plaintiffs are not jointly interested in several causes
of action which have been joined in one suit and the right to relief does not
arise from the same act or transaction or where common questions of law
or fact are not involved, the suit will be bad for mis-joinder of plaintiffs and
causes of action.

In a case where X sells to Y two plots of land adjoining to each other, one of
which is claimed by A by adverse possession and other by B by adverse
possession. Under the Code A and B could not join as plaintiffs in one suit
against X and Y, for the evidence of adverse possession by A would not be
evidence of adverse possession in favour of B and vice-versa.5 Similarly

4
State of Gujrat v. K L Patel AIR 2006 Guj 3 (DB)
5
Aiyava v. Vellaya(1911) ILR 34 Mad 55.
4|Page Joinder of Causes of Action

where five plaintiffs contract separately to sell cotton, though to the same
defendant, they cannot all join in one suit for damages of the five contracts.6

iii. JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS AND CAUSES OF ACTION

Where there is one plaintiff and two or more defendants and several causes
of action the plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action
against those defendants, if the defendants are jointly interested in the
cause of action. But this provision also must be read subject to Order 1 Rule
3, and therefore, two or more defendants can be joined in one suit,
provided the following two conditions are fulfilled;

1) The relief claimed must have been based on the same act or
transaction; and
2) Common questions of law or fact must have been involved.

In a decided case, a suit was filed for the eviction of a tenant from two
premises. One of the premises was in the occupation of tenant, on behalf of
his firm. For the other premises, the tenant had signed in his personal
capacity. The two, it was held could be combined. The firm was not a
necessary party. The plaintiff owned both the premises and he needed
them for bona fide personal requirement and the suit was not bad for
multifariousness.7

Where, in one suit, two or more defendants have been joined against whom
the causes of action are separate and therefore they are not jointly liable to
the plaintiff in respect of those causes of action and the right to relief
claimed is not based on the same act or transaction or where common

6
Chandulal v. Dagdu AIR 1925 Bom 342.
7
Padam Singh Jain v. Chandra Bros AIR 1990 Pat 95.
5|Page Joinder of Causes of Action

question of fact or law are not involved, the suit will be bad for misjoinder
of defendants and causes of action, technically called as multifariousness.

iv. JOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS AND CAUSES OF ACTION

Where there are two or more plaintiffs, two or more defendants and
several causes of action, the plaintiffs may unite the cause of action against
the defendants in the same suit only when all the plaintiffs are jointly
interested in the cause of action and the defendants are also jointly
interested in the cause of action. If the plaintiffs are not jointly interested in
the cause of action, the suit will bad for misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes
of action. On the other hand, if the defendants are not jointly interested in
the cause of action, the suit will be bad for multifariousness. And if neither
the plaintiffs nor the defendants are jointly interested in the cause of
action, the suit will be bad for double misjoinder, i.e. misjoinder of
plaintiffs and causes of action and misjoinder of defendants and causes of
action.

JURISDICTION

Where plaintiff combines several causes of action against the same

defendant in one suit, the jurisdiction of the court as regards the suit
depends on the value of the court as regards the suit depends on the value
of the aggregate subject matters.8

The jurisdiction referred to in the rule is pecuniary jurisdiction. Where the

court is not competent to try the suit by reason of either the subject-matter

8
Chiragh Din v. Bhagwan Das (1915) Punj, pg. 100.
6|Page Joinder of Causes of Action

or the defendants not being within its jurisdiction, that is a defect which is
not cured by this rule. Thus, where A filed suit in court X against B and C,
and the court had jurisdiction as regards B, as the cause of action arose
within its limits, but not regards C as he did not reside nor did the cause of
action arise within its jurisdiction, it was held that the court did not acquire
competence to try the suit under this rule.9

REVISION

It has been held by the High Court of Madras that a decision on the question
whether a suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action is
subject to revision.10

WHERE TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE TO COMMIT A WRONG OR

BREACH OF CONTRACT ENTERED INTO THEM SEPRATELY BY THE
PLAINTIFF

Where two or more persons conspire to commit a wrong or breach of

several contracts entered into with them by the plaintiff has, in such a case,
one cause of action against all the defendants, namely, a conspiracy to do
act complained of. Thus, where the seven salt manufacturers had conspired
together not to deliver the salt to A, A could have brought one suit against
them all. Similarly, if A and B conspire together to assault C, C may bring
one suit against them for damages for assault.11

9
Lingaya v. Sitharam AIR 1955 Mad 595.
10
Ramavtar Singh v. Ramsewak Lal AIR 1951 Pat 352.
11
Varajlal v. Ramdat(1902) ILR 26 Bom 259.
7|Page Joinder of Causes of Action

Rule 4 provides that no cause of action shall be joined with a suit for the
recovery of immovable property without the leave o the Court.

It also provides certain exceptions to this general rule:

(a) Claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the

property claimed or any part thereof ;
(b) Claims for damages for breach of any contract under which any
property or any part thereof is held and,
(c) Claims on which relief sought is based on the same cause of action.

Provided that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prevent any party
in a suit for foreclosure or redemption from asking to be put into
possession of the mortgaged property.

Rule 4 deals with joinder of claims. The rule provides that in a suit for the
recovery of immovable property. No claims other than those specified in
three exceptions shall be joined without leave of the court. The purpose of
this rule is to prevent joinder of dissimilar claims with the claim of
recovery of immovable property. However, no relief of Court is required if
all the reliefs are arising from same cause of action. Also, the rule has no
application where all relief are recoveries of different immovable property.
Rule 4 provides an exception to Rule 3 of Order II. The proviso of Rule 4
permits plaintiff in a suit for foreclosure or redemption to ask to be put in
possession of the mortgaged property.12

The word claim in this rule refers to a right which would be enforceable if
decreed by Court.

RULE 6 says that though joinder of causes of action is permissible, but

Court can order separate trials or make such other order as is expedient if
12
Ganeshi v. Jyoti, AIR 1953 SC 1.
8|Page Joinder of Causes of Action

it finds that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or
delay the trial or is inconvenient.13 The power is discretionary.

This rule does not apply to cases of misjoinder, but to cases where several
causes of action have been properly joined in one suit and the causes of
action so joined cannot be conveniently tried together.

OBJECTIONS AS TO MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION : Rule 7

All objections on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action must be taken

at the earliest opportunity, otherwise they will be deemed to have been
waived. Similarly, no decree or order under Section 47 of the Code can be
reversed or substantially varied in appeal, inter alia, on account of any
misjoinder or non-joinder of cause of action not affecting the merits of the
case or the jurisdiction of the court.

______________*******_____________

13
Rule has been substituted in place of old rule by the Amendment Act, 1976.
9|Page Joinder of Causes of Action