ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. Defendants 3, 4, 5 and 8, in O.S. No. 132 of 2000, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, are the petitioners. They feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2003, passed in that suit.
2. Respondents 1 to 8 filed the suit for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of as many as 17 pronotes, marked as Exs.A-1 to A-17, executed between 18-7-1994 and 16-5-1996. Most of the pronotes were said to have been executed by a firm, known as “Andhra Coffee and Flour Mills”, of which the petitioners and respondents 9 to 12 are said to be partners. The pronotes were said to have been signed by the then Managing Partner, Mr. Kota Narasimham, who is since dead. The pronotes in turn, were executed, in favour of respondents 1 to 8, with different combinations.
3. The petitioners and respondents 9 to 12 raised several objections. They pleaded that the suit was bad for joinder of causes of action, that it was defective, inasmuch as the firm was not impleaded, and that the suit claim was barred by limitation. The trial Court decreed the suit.
4. Sri T. Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that though a regular appeal, under Section 96 C.P.C., is maintainable against the decree in question, the petitioners are compelled to approach this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, because of the serious procedural irregularity, committed by the trial Court. He submits that that though not a single witness was examined, the suit was decreed, and that the Court did not seriously consider the objection, as to mis-joinder of causes of action. He further submits that the suit was filed in the year 2000, in relation to the pronotes that were said to have been executed, between 1994 and 1996, and the trial Court brushed aside the contention, as to the limitation, only on the ground that one of the partners had acknowledged it, without naming the person who is said to have acknowledged, much less, recording a finding thereon.
5. Sri M. Sreerama Murthy, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the CRP is not maintainable, when a regular remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners. He contends that the pronotes were executed, for and on behalf of the firm, and in that view of the matter; a single suit was maintainable, to enforce the liability under the pronotes. He also contends that once all the partners of the firm are made parties, the failure to implead the firm as such, cannot be said to be fatal. Learned Counsel submits that the necessity to examine any witness, to prove the pronotes, was not felt, inasmuch as there was no serious dispute, as to their genuinety or execution.
6. When there exists a regular remedy of appeal, the High Court cannot examine the correctness of a decree, in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it needs to be noticed that the very purpose of conferring supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227, is to arm the High Court with adequate power, to ensure that the subordinate Courts do not deviate from the settled principles of law, particularly in the matter of procedure. A clear distinction needs to be maintained, as to the adjudication of the findings recorded by the Courts, on the merits, on the one hand, and examination of deviations, if any, by the subordinate Court, from the settled procedure, on the other hand. While the former is in the exclusive province of remedy of appeal, the latter can certainly constitute the subject-matter of the revision, under Article 227. It is in this context that the present matter needs to be examined.
7. The petitioners pointed out three main defects, in the judgment of the trial Court. The first is about the joinder of independent causes of action, second is about non-impleading of the firm, which is said to have executed the pronotes, and the third is about recording of finding, on the enforceability of pronotes, though not a single witness was examined, to prove the same. Though objection as to limitation was raised, it cannot be dealt with, in this CRP since it touches upon the merits.
8. It is not in dispute that the 17 pronotes on the basis of which the suit was filed, were executed at different points of time, in favour of different persons. Rule 3 of Order 2 C.P.C., permits joinder of causes of action. It reads as under:
“Joinder of causes of action :–(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.
(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit.”
A reading of the same, discloses that a plaintiff may unite several causes of action, against the same defendant, in the same suit. It does not permit several persons, having claims against different persons, to join together and bring about a single suit. In the particular context of money suits, it is absolutely impermissible for different persons, claiming under different pronotes, to join together and file a single suit. A perusal of the paragraph relating to causes of action, furnished in the plaint, discloses that each and every pronote was referred to, separately, vis-a-vis the amount borrowed under it. Therefore, it was not permissible to join such different causes of action. The trial Court did not bestow its proper attention, as regards the complaint of the petitioners, in this regard.
9. The second aspect is about failure to implead the firm, which is said to have executed the pronotes. As observed earlier, most of the pronotes are said to have been executed on behalf of “Andhra Coffee and Flour Mills”. Order 30 C.P.C. mandates that whenever suits are filed by or against a firm, or company, it shall be made a party. Though the trial Court framed an issue, it answered it by making a reference to the mode of service of summons. It has to be noted that where a firm as such, is a party to the suit, notice can be said to have been served upon it, if it was received by any of the partners. By no stretch of imagination, the facility accorded by law, in the matter of service, can be treated as an exemption from impleading the firm itself.
10. The third and most important aspect is about the proof of the pronotes, marked as Exs.A-1 to A-17. Here again, the effort is not to delve the extent of proof, but the very absence of it. The Evidence Act mandates that any document can be said to have been proved, only when the party to it, deposes orally. Section 67 thereof prescribes the procedure in this regard. In certain cases, apart form the executants of the documents, the witnesses, or attestors, to the same, are required to be examined. The Evidence Act does not extend the facility of mere filing of the documents and drawing an inference, as to proof thereof, except where they fall into the category of documents referred to, in Sections 79 to 90. There may be exceptional cases, where the defendant in a suit may admit the execution of the document. In such an event, the plaintiff does not have to undertake the exercise of proving it. Even in such cases, the documents are required to be introduced, through a witness. Taking the document on record, otherwise than through a witness, is almost unknown to law. The exception is where, both the parties agree for certain documents to be taken on record, with consent. The record in this case does not disclose that there was such a consent. In fact, there were serious disputes about the genuinety, binding nature, legality and enforceability of all these documents. That being the case, it was not at all proper on the part of the trial Court to have decreed the suit, though not a single person was examined as a witness.
11. This Court finds that it is a fit case, where the errors committed by the trial Court, as to the very basic procedure, need to be corrected, in exercise of the powers of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. Hence, the CRP is allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court, for fresh consideration and disposal. It shall reframe the issues, on all the aspects referred to above, and decide the matter strictly, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.