INTRODUCTION

In the intricate realm of India's legal system, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
stands as a foundational document, orchestrating the procedural symphony
that guides civil litigation within the country. Enacted in 1908, the CPC has
evolved over the years to become a comprehensive and dynamic legal
framework, shaping the procedural aspects of civil justice. This essay embarks
on a journey to unravel the essence and significance of the CPC, delving into its
historical roots, overarching objectives, and pivotal role in shaping the
trajectory of legal proceedings in India.
The roots of the CPC trace back to the colonial era when the British East India
Company introduced a uniform system of civil procedure across its territories in
India. The need for a consolidated and systematic approach to civil litigation
prompted the enactment of the CPC in 1859, but it underwent substantial
revisions in 1882 and finally took its current form in 1908. This historical
evolution reflects the changing socio-legal landscape of India, marked by a
growing awareness of the need for standardized legal procedures to ensure
justice and fairness.
The CPC serves as a meticulous guide, delineating the procedural steps that
govern the initiation, conduct, and resolution of civil suits. It is structured into
numerous Orders and Rules, each addressing specific aspects of civil
procedure. From the issuance of summonses to the execution of decrees, the
CPC lays down a comprehensive roadmap that ensures the fair and efficient
administration of justice. Orders such as those governing pleadings, issues, and
evidence establish a structured framework for parties to present their cases
and for the court to adjudicate disputes judiciously.
At its core, the CPC strives to balance the adversarial dynamics inherent in civil
litigation. It provides a level playing field for litigants, ensuring that each party
has an opportunity to present its case, cross-examine witnesses, and adduce
evidence. The principles of natural justice and due process are embedded in
the CPC, safeguarding the rights of parties and fostering an environment
conducive to a just and equitable resolution of disputes.
MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
In the intricate tapestry of civil litigation, the misjoinder of causes of action
stands as a procedural quagmire, potentially complicating legal proceedings
and compromising the pursuit of justice. The concept revolves around the
improper grouping of distinct causes of action within a single lawsuit,
presenting challenges that strike at the heart of clarity, efficiency, and fairness
in the adjudication process.
At its essence, misjoinder of causes of action occurs when a plaintiff includes
two or more distinct and separate causes of action in a single suit. A cause of
action refers to a set of facts that, when coupled with the law applicable to
those facts, gives the plaintiff a right to seek a remedy in the court. The
misjoinder of causes of action, as prohibited by the CPC, introduces confusion
into legal proceedings by muddling distinct issues that may require different
sets of evidence, legal principles, and even separate trials.
Misjoinder may be misjoinder of plaintiffs; misjoinder of defendants and
misjoinder of cause of actions.
i. Misjoinder of Plaintiffs: Where two or more persons may have been
joined as plaintiffs in one suit but the right to relief alleged to exist in
each plaintiff does not arise out of the same act or transaction (or
series of acts or transaction) and if separate suits were brought by
each plaintiff no common question of fact or law would have been
arisen, there is misjoinder of plaintiffs]The objection on the ground of
misjoinder of the plaintiffs, should be taken at the earliest possible
opportunity; if not, it is be deemed to have been waived.
ii. Misjoinder of defendants: Likewise, where two or more persons have
been joined as defendants in one suit but the right to relief alleged to
exist against each defendant does not arise out of the same act or
transaction (or series of acts or transactions) and if separate suits
were brought against each defendant, no common question of fact or
law would have arisen, there is misjoinder of defendants. In Mosley v.
General Motors Corp. Ltd, the plaintiff (Nathaniel Mosley) along with
9 other persons joined in bringing an action individually and as class
representatives alleging their rights under a statute were denied by
General Motors, Local 25, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agriculture Implement Workers of America (Union), simply by reason
of their colour and race. The plaintiffs intended to bring about a
joinder of defendants. On this point, the district court held that there
could not be a joinder of defendants since there is no right of relief
out of the same transaction, and issues of fact/law involved are
common to all the plaintiffs. In Watergate Landmark Condominium
 Unit Owners Association v. Wiss, Janey, Elestner Associates, the limits
of the plaintiffs to join additional parties were laid down and it was
held that there must be a balance of convenience between the right
to speedy trial of the plaintiff and the right to fair trial of the
defendant.
iii. Misjoinder of cause of action: Misjoinder of causes of action may be
coupled with the misjoinder of plaintiffs or misjoinder of defendants.
Thus, the subject may be considered under the following three heads:
a. Misjoinder of plaintiffs and cause of action: Where in a suit there
are two or more plaintiffs and two or more causes of action, the
plaintiffs should be jointly interested in all the causes of action. If
the plaintiffs are not jointly interest in all the cause of action, the
case is one of misjoinder of plaintiffs and cause of action. The
objection on the ground of misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of
action should be taken at the earliest opportunity’
b. Misjoinder of defendant and causes of action: Misjoinder of
defendant and causes of action in a suit is technically called
Multifariousness. Where in a suit, there are two or more
defendants and two or more cause of action, the suit will be bad
for misjoinder of defendants and causes of action, if different
causes of action are joined against different defendants separately.
Such a misjoinder is technically called multifariousness. The
objection on the ground of multifariousness should be taken at
the earliest opportunity. The Calcutta High Court in Premlata
Nahata And Anr. vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria, 2004 held that the
defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the CPC"). His case is that the
plaint is liable to be rejected, because it is apparent from the
statements in it that the plaintiff's suit is barred by law; the law
that bars the suit is multifariousness.
Illustration
In a case, where the plaintiff purchased the suit house in which two persons
were residing as tenants separately and he brought a suit for eviction against
both the defendant-tenants claiming different relief against them. It was held
that the suit was bad for multifariousness.
Effect of misjoinder
 Misjoinder of claims founded on several causes of actions. Order 2 of the code
of Civil Procedure Code deals with the misjoinder of claims founded on several
claims. According to the rule, every suit must include the whole claim which
the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of that cause of action. The question
whether or not there is misjoinder of parties has to be decided on the basis of
the averments made in the plaint and not reference either to the written
statement or on the evidence led by the parties Rule expressly and
unequivocally declares that no suit is liable to be dismissed by reason of
misjoinder of parties. In other words, misjoinder of parties is not fatal to the
suit. It is mere irregularity covered by sections 99 and of the Code. Hence the
various high courts, on the question of misjoinder of parties held that no
decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall a case be remanded
in appeal inter alia on account of misjoinder of parties, not affecting the merits
of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. Where there is a misjoinder of
parties, the name of the plaintiff or the defendant who has been improperly
joined may be struck out under r 10 and the case may be proceed with.
MULTIFARIOUSNESS
Multifariousness is a procedural intricacy in civil litigation governed by the
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India. It involves the inclusion of multiple
parties or causes of action in a single lawsuit without a common question of
law or fact. This differs from the principle of joinder, which consolidates parties
and claims for efficiency. Understanding multifariousness is crucial for
navigating the complexities of legal proceedings and influencing the course of
justice. The CPC's Order I Rule 3 is a foundational guideline for understanding
multifariousness, guiding its scope and applicability in different contexts. This
understanding helps navigate the legal landscape and influence its
interpretation and implementation within the Indian legal system.
1. Common Question of Law or Fact:
Central to the concept of multifariousness is the requirement that parties or
causes of action share a common question of law or fact. This legal principle,
enshrined in Order I Rule 3 of the CPC, ensures a logical nexus between the
issues presented in a single suit. The elucidation of this principle provides a
foundational understanding of the interconnectedness that must exist to justify
the consolidation of diverse legal matters.
2. Same Transaction or Series of Transactions:
 Another cornerstone of multifariousness lies in the mandate that the parties
or causes of action must arise from the same transaction or series of
transactions. This principle emphasizes the need for a substantive and factual
link between the elements brought together in a single suit. This subsection
elucidates the rationale behind this criterion and its role in preventing the
arbitrary amalgamation of disparate legal claims.
Landmark Cases
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Sumac International Ltd. (2014):
This case is significant in establishing the principle that the mere presence of a
common question of law or fact does not automatically justify the joinder of
causes of action. The court emphasized that the causes of action must still arise
out of the same transaction or series of transactions.
Mohd. Habibullah Khan v. State of A.P. (2003):
While this case primarily dealt with issues related to joinder of parties, it
touched upon the broader principles of multifariousness. The court
emphasized the need for a nexus between different parties or causes of action
and cautioned against indiscriminate joinder without a common question of
law or fact.
Vivek Chaudhary v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2012):
While primarily a criminal case, this decision explored multifariousness and the
importance of maintaining a logical and legal connection between different
aspects of a case. The court's observations have implications for civil matters as
well, emphasizing the need for coherence in the joinder of parties and causes
of action.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
On receipt of summons, it is the duty of the defendant to appear before the
court on the date and time appointed appearance appears personally before
the court. He is any It not necessary through his counsel or authorized
representative. But, where the defendant commits default in making
appearance, the court may proceed to determine the cause without hearing
the defendant which could be detrimental to his interests.
PARTIES MUST COMPLY WITH THE SUMMONS [Order IX, Rule 1]:
The parties to suit are required to appear in the court on the day fixed in the
summons for the defendant to appear and answer the claim. The parties may
appear in person i.e., personally or through their respective pleaders. The suit
shall be heard by the court. However, the court may also adjourn the hearing
to a future date.
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTIES IN DEFIANCE OF
SUMMONS:
Following consequences flow in case of non-appearance of parties in various
situations: -
(i) Dismissal of suit;
(ii) Ex-parte order;
(iii) Adjournment of hearing;
(iv) Imposing of cost;
(v) Other orders.
Dismissal of suit:
The circumstances in which the court may dismiss the suit are as under-
If summons could not be served due to failure of plaintiff to pay necessary
expenses [Order IX, Rules 2 and 4]:
The summons is a legal document that requires a defendant to be served a
summons to represent their case. The plaintiff must pay necessary expenses
and provide a copy of the plaint or concise statement. If the plaintiff fails to pay
or provide the necessary documents, the summons will not be served. If the
court finds the summons cannot be served due to the plaintiff's failure, the suit
may be dismissed. If the defendant appears at the hearing, the suit will not be
dismissed. If the suit is dismissed, the plaintiff has two options: bring a fresh
suit or apply to set aside the dismissal. If the court finds sufficient cause for the
plaintiff's failure to pay expenses, it will set aside the dismissal and appoint a
day for proceeding with the suit.
If the summons is returned unserved and plaintiff fails to apply for fresh
summons within stipulated time [Order IX, Rule 51:
If a summons is returned unserved, the plaintiff must apply for a fresh
summons within seven days. If the plaintiff fails to do so, the court will dismiss
the suit against the defendant. The court may extend the application period if
the plaintiff fails to discover the defendant's residence, avoids service of
process, or has other valid reasons. If the suit is dismissed, the plaintiff can file
a fresh suit.
If no party appears [Order IX, Rules 3 and 4]:
Where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appears when the suit is called
out for hearing, the court may make an order of dismissal of suit. If, the suit is
so dismissed, the plaintiff has two options. He may either bring a fresh suit or
he may apply for setting aside the dismissal. If, the plaintiff applies for setting
aside the order of dismissal, he shall be required to satisfy the court that there
was sufficient cause for his non-appearance. If, the court is satisfied, it shall
make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for
proceeding with the suit.
If plaintiff does not appear but defendant appears [Order IX, Rule 8]:
If a plaintiff fails to appear for a hearing but the defendant rebuts their claim,
the suit is dismissed in default. If the defendant admits the entire claim, the
court passes a decree against the defendant. If only a part of the claim is
admitted, the court passes a decree against the defendant and dismisses the
suit. The Apex Court in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta ruled that
dismissal without trial is not due to the plaintiff's weakness or
unscrupulousness.
Ex-parte order:
The term ex parte means in the absence of the defendant. The circumstances
in which the court may proceed to hear and decide the suit ex parte are as
under:
If defendant does not appear despite service of summons on him [Order IX,
Rule 6 (1) (a)]:
If the plaintiff appears but the defendant doesn't, the court can order the suit
to be heard ex parte. In Saroja v. Chinnusamy, an ex parte decree is as effective
as a decree passed after contest, but only if the party challenging it proves it
was obtained through fraud or collusion.
Adjournment of hearing:
If a defendant fails to appear for a hearing due to a lack of sufficient time for a
summons, the court may postpone the hearing to a future day according to
[Order IX, Rule 6 (1) (c)]. In Nahar Enterprises v. Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd., the
court ruled that if the summons was served after the scheduled date, the court
must set another date for the defendant's appearance and filing of a written
statement.
Imposing of cost:
In following cases, the court may impose cost on plaintiff or defendant:
If defendant could not appear due to plaintiff's default [Order IX, Rule 6m(2)]:
When, the suit is called out for hearing, if the defendant does not appear and it
is proved that the summons was not duly served or was not served in sufficient
time owing to plaintiff's default, the court shall direct the plaintiff to pay the
costs occasioned by the postponement.
If defendant assigns a good cause for his previous non-appearance [Order IX,
Rule 7]:
If, the defendant does not appear on the day fixed in summons but appears on
or before adjourned day and assigns good cause for his previous non-
appearance, the court may direct him to pay costs. On payment of costs, the
defendant shall be heard as if he had appeared on the day, fixed for his
appearance.
If plaintiff assigns sufficient reasons for his previous non-appearance [Order
IX, Rule 9]:
Rule 8 prohibits a fresh suit from being brought if a suit was dismissed in
default due to the plaintiff's non-appearance. The plaintiff can apply for a set
aside dismissal, proving sufficient cause for their non-appearance. If the court
is satisfied, it will order the dismissal, impose costs, and appoint a day for
proceeding with the suit. In the case of Fountainhead Promotions and Events
Pvt. Ltd. v. Gitanjali Lifestyle Ltd., the Bombay High Court ruled that defendants
must prove that the writ of summons or summons for judgment was not duly
served upon them and that special circumstances exist for setting aside an ex
parte decree passed in a summary suit.
Other orders:
The court is also empowered to pass following orders in case of non-
appearance of parties :-
If defendant fails to appear because the summons was not duly served on
him [Order IX, Rule 6 (1) (b)]:
When the suit is called out for hearing, if the defendant does not appear and it
is not proved that the summons was duly served on him, the court shall direct
that a second summons be issued and served on the defendant.
If one or more of several plaintiffs fail to appear [Order IX, Rule 10]:
If there are several plaintiffs out of which some appear and some do not, the
court may permit the suit to proceed in the same way as if all the plaintiffs had
appeared. Such order may be passed at the instance of appearing plaintiff or
plaintiffs.
If one or more of several defendants fail to appear [Order IX, Rule 11]:
If there are several defendants out of which some appear and some do not,
the suit shall proceed. At the time of pronouncing judgment, the court may
make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the defendants who do not
appear.
If the parties do not appear in person despite clear order [Order IX, Rule 12]:
Where the plaintiff or the defendant was directed to appear in person but he
neither appears in person nor shows sufficient cause for such failure, such
person shall be subject to all provisions relating to non-appearance of parties.
EX-PARTE DECREE :
Meaning of ex parte decree:
When the summons is duly served on defendant, he is duty-bound to appear
before the court on the day fixed in the summons. If he commits default and
does not appear at the time when the suit is called out for hearing, it shall be
presumed that he is not inclined to contest the matter and protect his interest.
Therefore, the court may proceed to hear and decide the suit in his absence
under Rule 6 (1) (a). A decree passed by the court without hearing the
defendant is known as ex parte decree. The term "ex parte", therefore, means
"in the absence of the defendant". Such a decree is not null and void, instead it
is perfectly legal and valid and capable of being enforced.
Remedies available to the defendant when an ex parte decree is passed
against him:
An ex parte decree is valid and enforceable. If an ex parte decree is passed
against a defendant, such defendant may avail of any of the following four
remedies viz. (i) he may file an application before the court passing the decree
to set aside the ex parte decree; or (ii) he may file a suit for declaration that the
ex parte decree was obtained by fraud; or (iii) he may file an appeal against the
ex parte decree since ex parte decree is appealable; or (iv) he may file a review
application against such ex parte decree.
Setting aside ex parte decree [Order IX, Rules 13 and 14]:
In ex parte decree cases, a defendant can request the decree to be set aside
within thirty days, proving they failed to appear due to lack of service or
sufficient cause. The court may impose costs and appoint a day for the suit to
proceed. However, no decree can be set aside without notice to the opposing
party. In Kashiraj s/o Dhondu Game Alias Kashinath v. Lata Madhukar
Ghorpade, an ex parte decree was passed but the suit was transferred without
notice. The Bombay High Court ruled that appellants should be given an
opportunity to participate in the suit proceedings.
Sufficient cause :
When the defendant applies for setting aside an ex parte decree, it is necessary
for him to satisfy the court that sufficient cause existed for his non-appearance
Some of the sufficient causes are sickness of the counsel; bona fide mistake as
to date of hearing; late arrival of train; death of relative of the non-appearing
party; mistake of pleader in noting wrong date in his diary etc.
Application for setting aside ex parte decree must be made within limitation
period :
The limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree is thirty days from the
decree's date. In Mahabir Singh v. Subhash, the Apex Court ruled that the
period should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the decree's passing.
The court ruled that applications filed after one and a half years were barred by
limitation, as no court can entertain such suits or applications after the limit
period expires..
Effect of setting aside an ex parte decree:
When a court sets aside an ex parte decree, the suit is restored and the trial
begins de novo. The court may impose conditions to prove sufficient cause for
non-appearance, but they should not be unreasonable or excessively harsh. In
Ramesh v. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., the court directed the appellant to deposit a
substantial part of the suit amount and allowed the respondent to withdraw it.
In Tea Auction Ltd. v. Grace Hill Tea Industry, the court provided security of Rs. 5
lacs within 12 weeks.
EXAMINATION OF PARTIES BY THE COURT
[Order X, Rules 1 to 4]:
At the first hearing. the court conducts examination of the partie suit. The
object is to find out the points of agreement and disagreement between them.
The facts which are not opposed by the other side are considered to be the
points of agreement between the parties. Such points need not be determined
by the court since there is no controversy involved. But the contested facts, e,
the facts on which the rival parties are in disagreement are required to be
adjudicated upon by manner, the court arrives at the real points of dispute. the
court. In this manner the court arrives at the real points of dispute.
Ascertainment whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or denied
[Order X, Rules 1]:
The court determines the admissibility of allegations in a suit by asking the
defendant or pleader to admit or deny the allegations made against them in
the plaint. The court records the admissions and denials of rival parties. In
Etwari Devi v. Parvati Devi, the plaintiff deposited the required amount within
the trial court's time, but filed an application for extension. The High Court
ruled that the plaintiff had not deposited the money within the time granted,
and the Apex Court ruled that the High Court should have ignored the
application and not relied on it.
Parties to opt for any mode of alternative dispute resolution [Order X, Rules
1-A, 1-B and 1-C]:
The court will direct parties to settle disputes outside the court through
alternative dispute resolution methods such as Arbitration, Conciliation, Lok
Adalat, or Mediation. The court will set a date for parties to appear before the
chosen forum or authority for conciliation. If the Presiding Officer of the
conciliation forum decides it's not proper to proceed, the court will revert the
matter back to the court. The Presiding Officer or Authority will then set a date
for parties to appear.
Oral examination of party [Order X, Rule 2]:
The court must orally examine parties in a suit to clarify matters in controversy.
It may also examine the companion of a party who can answer any material
question. At subsequent hearings, the court may examine any party or their
companion. In Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. v. Harbans Lal, the court ruled that Rule
2 aims to identify the matters in controversy, not to prove or disprove, seek
admissions, or decide parties' rights or obligations. The purpose of oral
examination is to elucidate allegations, even in pleadings or other documents.
Substance of examination to be written [Order X, Rule 3]:
The Judge shall write the substance of such examination which shall form part
of the record.
Consequence of refusal or inability of pleader to answer [Order X, Rule 4] :
If the pleader of any party refuses to answer or is unable to answer any
material question relating to the suit, the court may postpone the hearing of
the suit. However, such postponement shall not be later than seven days from
the date of first hearing. The court may direct the party to appear in person on
such day to answer the question. If such party fails to appear in person on the
day so appointed, the court may pronounce judgment against him.

CONCLUSION
The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India outlines procedural intricacies that
shape the civil litigation landscape. Misjoinder of causes of action,
multifariousness, and the appearance and examination of parties are key
concepts that ensure fairness, efficiency, and transparency in the
administration of justice. Misjoinder of causes of action emphasizes the
importance of specificity and clarity in pleadings, preventing confusion and
unfair prejudice. Multifariousness involves the joinder of multiple parties or
causes of action lacking a common question of law or fact, promoting judicial
economy and fair adjudication.
Appearance is a crucial procedural step, ensuring all parties are duly notified
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the legal process. This
regulation safeguards against undue surprises and upholds natural justice
principles, contributing to a level playing field. The examination of parties,
orchestrated by Order X, uncovers facts, clarifies issues, and establishes the
evidentiary foundation for the case. This process enhances transparency,
facilitates informed decision-making, and contributes to the pursuit of justice.
Legal practitioners are entrusted with the responsibility of balancing efficiency
and fairness in navigating these complexities. A nuanced understanding of
misjoinder, multifariousness, and the procedural aspects of appearance and
examination of parties is essential for fostering a legal landscape where justice
is not only sought but also diligently and fairly pursued.