Madhavan Nair, J.
1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. to revise an order of the Subordinate Judge which directed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. The suit instituted by these plaintiffs was for the establishment of occupancy rights in their various holdings which they claimed against the Shrotriamdar. The Subordinate Judge holding that the cause of action of each plaintiff was distinct and also that there were special causes of action in which all the plaintiffs were not interested thought it would be more convenient if the plaintiffs were called upon to amend the plaint and therefore made an order to that effect. That order has also been acted upon to a certain extent by the 9th plaintiff. The vakil appearing for all the plaintiffs put in an application stating that in obedience to the order of the Court he was prepared to confine the plaint to the 9th plaintiff alone, and, accordingly the plaint was amended.
2. It is now argued that the order of the lower Court is unsustainable because, really speaking, there is only one cause of action alleged in the plaint. But, on reading the pleadings, it is clear that two be three separate questions arise for consideration. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, as pointed out by the learned Subordinate Judge, the genuineness of the muchilikas, which have been executed by some of the plaintiffs, is denied. In paragraph 9 certain decrees obtained against some plaintiffs are challenged as-having been fraudulently obtained, As regards some of the plaintiffs, therefore, additional questions besides the existence or otherwise of the occupancy rights alleged by all of them have to be considered.
3. I cannot see why the plaintiffs should insist on combining in the same suit two or three different causes of action in which all are not interested. If all the plaintiffs had only one common relief, namely the establishment of occupancy rights, which they allege against the defendants, certainly the suit will not be bad on account of misjoinder of causes of action. The observations of the Privy Council in Seturatnam Aiyar v. Venkatachala Goundan  43 Mad. 567 quoted by the learned Subordinate Judge, apply pre-eminently to cases like the present one.
4. I, therefore, dismiss the petition with costs.