1. The petitioners, who are defendant nos.1, 2 & 5 in
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court,
B. As a consequence of Prayer (A), allow the
Interlocutory Application No.2 dated 14.03.2025 filed by
the petitioners herein before the Court of the LXXXVI
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore
(Annexure 'N');
NC: 2025:KHC:40565
HC-KAR
C. Pass such other or further order(s) as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and
equity.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. Respondent no.1 herein has filed Com.O.S.No.1390/2023
before the jurisdictional Court for recovery of a sum of
Rs.24,66,072/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the
defendants. In the said suit, defendant no.4 has filed his
written statement. Defendant nos.1, 2 & 5 had filed an
application - IA No.2 before the Trial Court under Order I Rule
3-A and Order II Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC with a
prayer to conduct separate trial on the subject matter relating
to defendant nos.1, 2, 4 & 5. The said application was opposed
by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the
order impugned has dismissed IA No.2 and being aggrieved by
the same, defendant nos.1, 2 & 5 are before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that even according to
the averments found in the plaint, the plaintiff is seeking
recovery of only a sum of Rs.2,73,666/- with interest from the
NC: 2025:KHC:40565
HC-KAR
petitioners and defendant no.4. The remaining claim is not as
against the petitioners herein. There is misjoinder of parties
and cause of actions in the present case which is likely to delay
the trial. He, therefore, submits that the Trial Court was not
justified in rejecting IA No.2. In support of his arguments, he
has placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High
Court in the case of INDER BAHADUR SINGH VS SITA RAM &
OTHERS - ILR 1941 ALL 370.
5. Perusal of the plaint averments would go to show that
plaintiff has averred that defendant no.1 is a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, and defendant nos.5 &
6 are entities of defendant no.1-company. It is the case of the
plaintiff that at the request of defendant no.1, he had rendered
services to defendant no.1 and towards the same, defendant
no.1 has been making payments since the year 2018. At the
request of defendant no.1, bills were raised in the name of
defendant nos.5 & 6 who are the entities of defendant no.1-
company. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that as per its
understanding with defendant no.1, the transactions were done
by the plaintiff in the name of defendant nos.5 & 6, though
NC: 2025:KHC:40565
HC-KAR
payments were being made by defendant no.1 for the services
rendered by the plaintiff. It is under these circumstances, the
suit is filed by including defendant nos.5 & 6 as party
defendants.
6. Order I Rule 3 of CPC provides for joining defendants to a
suit and Order I Rule 3-A of CPC provides that if it appears to
the court that any joinder of defendants may embarrass or
delay the trial of the suit, the court may order separate trial in
the interest of justice.
7. Similarly, Order II Rule 3 of CPC provides for joinder of
cause of actions and Order II Rule 6 of CPC provides power to
the court to order separate trial where it appears to the court
that joinder of cause of action in one suit may embarrass or
delay the trial, or is otherwise inconvenient to the court, the
Court may order separate trials in the interest of justice.
8. From the reading of Order I Rule 3-A CPC as well Order II
Rule 6 CPC, it is apparent that if only the court finds that
joinder of defendants or joinder of cause of action in a suit may
NC: 2025:KHC:40565
HC-KAR
embarrass or delay the trial of the suit, then the court may
pass appropriate orders.
9. In the case on hand, the Trial Court has observed that
defendants are collectively liable to pay the outstanding dues,
and accordingly, has rejected the prayer made in IA No.2 by
defendant nos.1, 2 & 5.
10. It is relevant to note here that defendant nos.1, 2 & 5
have not filed their written statement before the Trial Court,
and on the other hand, they have made a prayer to hold a
separate trial against them and defendant no.4. Defendant
nos.3 & 6 who are served in the matter, have remained
unrepresented before the Trial Court, and therefore, they have
been placed ex-parte before the Trial Court.
11. In Inder Bahadur Singh's case supra, the High Court of
Allahabad, placing reliance on the judgment in the case of
KHADER SAHEB VS CHOTIBIBI - (1884) ILR 8 BOM 616, which
was rendered by a Bench of Bombay High Court, has observed
that if a court finds several causes as between plaintiff and
other defendants, which cannot properly or conveniently be
NC: 2025:KHC:40565
HC-KAR
tried together, should deal with them separately as what may
be called as sub-suits.
12. From a reading of the aforesaid, it is apparent that it is
only if the court finds it inconvenient with several causes or
defendants, then the powers under Order I Rule 3-A or Order II
Rule 6 can be exercised. In the case on hand, the same is not
the situation, and therefore, the judgment on which reliance
has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, I
am of the opinion that this petition does not merit
consideration. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
