AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.—The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 6369-13-6 with interest and costs being the balance alleged to be due on account of 861 mauuds and 29 1/2, seers of cotton jointly sold by all the plaintiffs to defendant No 1 on or about March 1, 1920, at Rs. 12 per maund. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 1609 with one third of their costs. It was proved in the trial Court that there was not one contract for the sale of 861 maunds of cotton by the plaintiffs to the defendant but that each plaintiff contracted to supply a certain number of maunds of cotton to the defendant, the total amount of the five contracts being 861 maunds It was quite impossible, therefore, for the plaintiffs to join in one suit five different causes of action on five different contracts made by five different plaint-tiffs. But they do not seek to do that. They seek to base their claim against the defendants on a single contract, though it is perfectly clear on the evidence that there was not one single contract but five contracts. Consequently the suit must inevitably fail. The provisions of the CPC as regards the misjoinder of parties or the misjoinder of causes of action cannot possibly apply to this case. There is neither a misjoinder of parties nor a misjoiuder of causes of action. But it is a case where a number of plaintiffs file a suit on a cause of action which does not exist. Consequently to allow any one of these plaintiff''s to change the suit which was brought in the name of all into a suit brought by one of them would not come within the provisions of the Code which provide that no suit shall be defeated on a technical ground by reason of the mis-joinder of parties or causes of action. Assuming that we were to accede to the respondents'' suggestion that one of them should be allowed to continue the suit as based on his own contract, which of the plaintiff''s is to he allowed to do this ? There can be no answer to that, question, and consequently the decision of the Court below was wrong, the appeal must be allowed and the suit dismissed with costs throughout.