AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The District Judge has dismissed this suit on the preliminary ground that there is misjoinder of defendants and of causes of action, but he has not
stated what the causes of action are which have been improperly joined. We do not think there is any misjoiuder. Section 28 of the CPC directs
that all persons may be joined as defendants against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, in
respect of the same matter. In the present suit the cause of action arises from the malversation of the second defendant in. regard to the plaintiff''s
property of which he was the guardian, and the plaintiff''s right to have an account of his property and to recover it. The allegation in paragraph JI
of the plaint is that the property, items Nos. 1 to 7 in Schedule 67, were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant with property which belonged
to the plaintiff, and that these items were in the possession of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and were afterwards wrongfully sold to defendants Nos. 5
to 8, and are now in the possession of defendants Nos. 4 to 8. The right to relief against defendants Nos. 1 and 4 to 8 and against defendant No.
2 and his son, the third defendant, in regard to these items, exists in respect of the same matter, and they may be jointly sued. We think, too, that
more inconvenience would result from bringing separate suits than from dealing with the whole mattter in one suit.
We, therefore, set aside the decree of the District Judge and direct him to restore the suit to his file and to dispose of it according to law. Costs
will abide the event.