IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.961 of 2005 Smt. Janki Devi, wife of Late Chhattu Prasad @ Chhattu Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Singhia Khurd, Police Station-Samastipur Muffasil, District-Samastipur. ………………………………… Plaitniff/Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Collector, Samastipur. 2. The Superintendent of Rail Mail Service, N.B. Division, Samastipur. 3. The Director, Postal Service, North Region, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. ………………………………… Defendants/Opposite Parties. 6. Smt. Meena Prasad, wife of Dr. Arbind Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Bengali Tola, Ward No. 20 (New) Police Station and District- Samastipur. ……………………………………… Plaintiff/Opposite Parties. With C.R. No. 221 of 2006 Smt. Janki Devi, wife of Late Chhattu Prasad, Resident of Village- Singhia Khurd, P.O.-Singhia, Police Station-Samastipur Muffasil, District-Samastipur. ………………………………. Plaintiff No. 1 - Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Collector, Samastipur, P.O. Town and District-Samastipur. 2. The Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, N.B. Division, Samastipur, P.O., Town and District-Samastipur. 3. Director, Postal Services, North Region, Muzaffarpur, P.O., Town and District-Muzaffarpur. 4. Post master General, Bihar Circle, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur, P.O., Town and District-Muzaffarpur. 5. Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna, P.O.-G.P.O., Town and District-Patna. ……………………………………. Defendants – Opposite Parties. 6. Smt. Meena Prasad, wife of Dr. Arbind Prasad, Resident of Village- Bengali Tola, Ward No. 20, P.O. Town, Police and District- Samastipur. …………………………………… Plaintiff No. 2 – Opposite Party. ------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ram Balak Mahto,Sr.Advocate. Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh,Advocate. For the opp.Party: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr.Advocate Mr. Dronacharya, Advocate. For the Union of India: Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate. --------- 11 18.9.2009 Heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party as also Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India. 2 In the opinion of this Court when the two plaintiffs would bring a cause of action and file a suit, they have to either swim or sink together. In the present case during pendency of the suit, Money Suit No. 11 of 2002 which was filed basically for realization of certain amount of money payable by the Union of India and its officials, an amendment was sought to be made at the instance of plaintiff no.2 adversely affecting the interest of plaintiff no.1. As a matter of fact, in the garb of such amendment sought by the plaintiff no.2 ( Meena Prasad) she had sought to convert the money suit into a title suit for adjudicating her interse rights between herself and her mother ( plaintiff no.1, Smt. Janki Devi). By the impugned order such amendment sought by the plaintiff no.2, adverse to the interest of plaintiff no.1, was allowed and has been assailed by the petitioner plaintiff no.1 on various grounds. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner appearing for the petitioner in both the cases has 3 referred to the averments made in the plaint to contend that though there was no adverse interest in the original plaint filed by the mother and the daughter together (Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2), but now in view of amendment allowed by the court below in the impugned order, the issue of title between the mother and the daughter will have to be first gone into in order to pass a money decree. He would submit that this is wholly impermissible; in as much as, nature of the suit would itself totally change. In this context he has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of ’Miss. K. Masih Principal, Angus Girls High School, Lodipur, Patna Vs. Baptis Union of North India (Regd.) Delhi & ors‘ reported in 1993 (I) Bihar Law Judgement 737 and in the case of ‘Beldih Club, Jamshedpur vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur & Ors.’ reported in 1991 (I) P.L.J.R. 81, which according to him lays down that in a case or more than one plaintiffs in a suit there cannot be conflict of interest between the plaintiffs. 4 Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff no.2, who has been made opposite party no.6 in this civil revision application has however referred to certain subsequent events to contend that as name of plaintiff no.2 was subsequently mutated in respect of the suit property by the order of the Circle Officer, Samastipur dated 11.11.2004 in Mutation Case No. 652 of 2004-05, which order was confirmed even in appeal filed by the plaintiff no.1 by the D.C.L.R. Samastipur in the order dated 16.3.2005 and was also upheld also in a revisional order passed by the Collector of the Samastipur district in the order dated 27.6.2006 while dismissing the revision application filed by plaintiff no.1, she (plaintiff no.2) had acquired her own independent title to the suit property and as such the amendments were only brought in the pending suit filed jointly by the plaintiffs for getting the money decree in favour of plaintiff no. 2 to the exclusion of plaintiff no. 1. He was thus of the 5 view that after filing of the suit when certain subsequent events had taken place they were only being brought on the records by way of amendment in the plaint at the instance of daughter (plantiff no. 2) which in no view of the matter could have changed nature of the suit and at best could have extinguished the right of petitioner-plaintiff no.1, mother in getting the money decree. This Court having given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions and after looking into plaint of Money Suit No. 11 of 2002 and Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2004 has no hesitation in holding that the amendment sought in the plaint by plaintiff no.2 who is opposite party no. 6 in both the civil revision applications would not have been allowed. From a bare perusal of both the plaints it would be clear that both the plaintiffs had jointly sought either relief of the money decree or eviction by having common and the same interest. The moment such amendment as sought by the plaintiff no.2-opposite party no.6 is 6 allowed, there would be a direct conflict to the interest between the plaintiffs which cannot be made subject matter of the suit as they had originally framed and filed. In the event plaintiff no.2 even on account of some subsequent events had become the sole owner of the property, she had the option of getting her right, title and interest in the suit property declared by filing an independent suit but in no view of the matter she could have been allowed to stake her independent right in the present suit which in fact would lead to converting both the money suit and the eviction suit jointly filed by the two plaintiffs in two contested title suit between mother and daughter, i.e, plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2. In this context principles emanating order 1 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. itself provides that two or more persons may be join as plaintiffs in one suit if the right and relief exists for each plaintiffs arises from the same act or transaction and there is common question of law or facts and in absence thereof two 7 persons cannot join as a plaintiffs in one suit. In the present case initially when money suit or the eviction suit was filed by both the plaintiffs, i.e, mother and daughter, right to relief either of money decree or eviction decree against the Union of India and its officials arose from the same act and transaction and there was a common question of law or fact. This, however, was sought to be changed by plaintiff no.2 by seeking to introduce her solitary right to get the money decree or eviction decree in her favour by claiming herself to be landlord of the premises to the exclusion of right of plaintiff no.1. This was simply not permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases therefore seems to be correct that by allowing amendment, nature of the suit would itself change. He is further correct in relying on the ratio laid down in the judgment of this court in the case of Miss K. Masih Principal, Angus Girls High School, Lodipur, Patna (Supra), 8 wherein this aspect of the matter has gone into and has been held that two plaintiffs cannot have conflicting interest in one suit. That being so, this Court must hold the impugned order passed in both the cases allowing amendment to be bad and accordingly they are set aside. In the result, both the civil revision applications are allowed in the aforementioned terms. There will be, however, no order as to costs. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar