Causes of Action
Joinder of
2 | Page
Causes of Action
Joinder of
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.
2 Order 2, Rule 6.
3 Glaxo Operations UK Ltd v. Samrat Pharmaceuticals AIR 1984 Del 265.
3 | Page
Causes of Action
Joinder of
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 could not
have filed three separate suits in view of the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure.4
ii.
4 | Page
Causes of Action
Joinder of
5 | Page
Causes of Action
Joinder of
and
causes
of
action,
technically
called
as
multifariousness.
iv.
6 | Page
Causes of Action
Joinder of
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 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
8 Chiragh Din v. Bhagwan Das (1915) Punj, pg. 100.
9 Lingaya v. Sitharam AIR 1955 Mad 595.
7 | Page
Causes of Action
Joinder of
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
8 | Page
Causes of Action
Joinder of
(b)
(c)
where
all
relief
are
recoveries
of
different
9 | Page
Causes of Action
Joinder of
______________*******_____________
13 Rule has been substituted in place of old rule by the Amendment Act, 1976.
10 | P a g e
Causes of Action
Joinder of