2007 (2) TMI 696 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of sums allegedly due.
2. Misjoinder of parties and causes of action.
3. Maintainability of the appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
4. Application of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Consolidation of suits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Recovery of Sums Allegedly Due:
The appellants, mother and daughter, filed a suit (C.S. No. 29 of 2003) in the Calcutta High Court seeking recovery of sums allegedly lent to the respondent. Appellant No. 1 claimed Rs. 10,93,863/- and Appellant No. 2 claimed Rs. 10,90,849/- with interest. The transactions were allegedly conducted through Mahendra Kumar Nahata, husband of Appellant No. 1 and father of Appellant No. 2. The respondent had repudiated their claims and filed counter suits for recovery of amounts against the appellants.

2. Misjoinder of Parties and Causes of Action:
The respondent filed an application (G.A. No. 4458 of 2003) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the plaint should be rejected due to misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The trial judge dismissed the application, stating that misjoinder does not bar a suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. The Division Bench, however, held that the suit was bad for misjoinder and directed the appellants to elect to proceed with one of the plaintiffs and one of the claims.

3. Maintainability of the Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent:
The appellants questioned the maintainability of the respondent's appeal before the Division Bench. The court referred to the precedent in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. Vs. M.E. Sea Success I, which allowed appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent even in cases where the trial judge refuses to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The court accepted this position for the purpose of the current case.

4. Application of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The court analyzed whether a suit bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d). It concluded that misjoinder is a procedural defect, not a substantive bar to the suit. The Code of Civil Procedure allows the court to manage such defects without rejecting the plaint. The court emphasized that procedural rules are meant to facilitate justice, not obstruct it.

5. Consolidation of Suits:
The court noted that the appellants had moved for the withdrawal and joint trial of the respondent's suits (Money Suit No. 585 of 2001 and Money Suit No. 69 of 2002) with C.S. No. 29 of 2003. The trial judge had ordered the consolidation, which became final. The Supreme Court observed that joint trials are permissible and practical when common questions of law or fact arise. The evidence in all three suits would be common, making a joint trial appropriate.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversing the Division Bench's decision and restoring the trial judge's order. The court directed a joint trial of the three suits, emphasizing that procedural objections like misjoinder should not obstruct the course of justice. The learned single judge of the High Court was requested to expedite the trial and disposal of the suits in accordance with the law.