Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to enable plaintiffs to join in respect of distinct causes of action.
If the consent of any one who ought to be joined as a plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant, the reasons therefor being stated in the plaint.
Each member of a partnership is severally bound, and may be sued separately on a promissory note made by one in the name of the partnership. The action was filed against the surviving partners after the death of the partner who had granted the note. Court held, that the action was not bad for non joinder of the legal representative of the deceased partner.
Muththaiya Chetty Vs. De Silva (3 N.L.R. 59)
A defendant who pleads non joinder shall state the name of the party to be joined, so that the plaintiff may have an opportunity of amending the plaint.
Ponnamma Vs. Kasipathi Pulle (4 N.L.R. 261)
Where two persons arrested and charged together with same offence in the same case were acquitted. Both filed one action to recover damages for malicious arrest and prosecution. The cause of action accruing to each separate and distinct and cannot be combined. Suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action.
Don Simon Appuhamy Vs. Marthelis Rosa (9 N.L.R. 68)
Two plaintiffs, who claimed to be each entitled to two distinct lots A and B jointly brought an action for declaration ejectment and damages against several defendants. Action is bad due to misjoinder of plaintiffs.
Jayamaha Vs. Singappu (13 N.L.R. 348)
A lessee cannot sue against his lessor and a trespasser unless and until he suffers eviction by due process of law.
Alagiyawanna Gurunnanse Vs. Don Hendrick (13 N.L.R. 225)
Joinder by two persons in one action of claims in respect of separate lands To which each is separately entitled is obnoxious to section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, but the irregularity may be waived by the defendant.
Madar Saibo Vs. Sirajudeen (17 N.L.R. 97)
There is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code or any other law requiring an action to be dismissed where there is a misjoinder of causes of action. It is, therefore, improper for the court to dismiss an action on the ground of misjoinder of defendants and causes of action without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend his plaint.
The plaintiffs, who were dayakayas of a Vihare, sued for a declaration that the 1st defendant, who was a bhikku resident in the temple, was guilty of “parajika” and had, therefore, forfeited his right to be a bhikku. They also prayed for an order directing the 2nd defendant, who had jurisdiction over the temple in his capacity as Mahanayake Thero, to take the necessary measures if the 1st defendant was declared to have forfeited his right to be a member of the Sangha.
Held, that there was a misjoinder of defendants and causes of action. In as much as, under section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, no action should be defeated by reason of misjoinder of parties, the plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to amend their plaint so that the action should proceed against the 1st defendant only.
Dingiri Appuhamy Vs. Talakolawewe Pangananda Thero(67 N.L.R. 89)
There is no provision in the Code to dismiss an action on the ground of misjoinder of cause of action.
Ranasinghe Vs. Fernando (69 N.L.R. 115)
Where A has a cause of action against two defendants and B has a separate cause of action against the same two defendants, they cannot, under our law, unite them in one action on the grounds that both causes of action arise from the same acts or series of acts or that in determining them the same question of law or fact arises.
The first and second plaintiffs claimed to be declared the hereditary Maha Kapurala and Kapurala respectively of the Etul Kattele department of the Maha Saman Dewale at Ratnapura. They averred that their rights to work at the Dewale were denied by the first and second defendants. The first defendant was the Basnayake Nilame of the Pita Kattele division of the same Dewale.
Held, that even a concerted attempt by the defendants acting in collusion to oust the plaintiffs as alleged in the plaint would involve a denial of the respective rights of each plaintiff by the two defendants and would give rise to a separate cause of action in favour of each plaintiff against both defendants. There was therefore, according to section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, a misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action. It is, however, clear law that an action will not be dismissed on the ground of such a misjoinder but that one party plaintiff will be permitted to proceed with his claim. Admittedly the claim of the second plaintiff could be struck out.
In regard to the first plaintiff, although he sought a declaration that he was the Maha Kapurala of the Maha Saman Dewale, the trial Judge held that it had not been proved that there was an office of Maha Kapurala of the Dewale. Nevertheless he answered issues framed relating to the first plaintiff’s claim to be Maha Kapurala as though they related to a claim to be Kapurala and granted him a declaration that he was a Kapurala of the Dewale.
Held, that the trial Judge erred in granting the first plaintiff relief not prayed for and not claimed in the action by him and that on his finding that there was no office of Maha Kapurala in the Saman Dewale at Ratnapura, he should have dismissed the first plaintiff’s action.
Weragama Vs. Bandara (77 N.L.R. 289)
Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code enjoins a Judge not to dismiss an action for misjoinder or non joinder of parties. The wrong party should be struck off and the necessary amendments to the pleadings made. Merely striking out the name of a wrongly joined plaintiff would sometimes suffice.
Waharaka alias Moratota Sobhita Thero Vs.Amunugama Ratnapala Thero 1981 (1) SLR 201)(Bar Journal 1984. Vol. I Part IV page 99)
Joining of the sub tenant in an ejectment case against the tenant on the ground of sub letting is not a misjoinder.
Thabyayah Vs.Ali (Sri Skantha Law Reports Vol. III page 99)
The plaintiffs who were each entitled to ¼ share of a land brought an action for pre-emption of the other half which belonged to two sets of defendants, viz., the first and second defendants who by 8D1 transferred to the eighth defendant and the third to the sixth defendants who by 8D2 also transferred to the eighth defendant. On an objection that there was a misjoinder of parties and causes of action,
Held that,the plaintiffs’ cause of action was not the execution of deeds 8D1 and 8D2 but the violation of the plaintiffs’ right to purchase the outstanding half share and that there was no misjoinder.
The right of pre-emption is based on an implied contract whereby co-owners are jointly bound to one another. The plaintiffs were therefore joint contractors and entitled to join in one action under section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Thangammah Vs. Kanagasabai (51 N.L.R. 500)
No comments:
Post a Comment