Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Supreme Court Explains the Scope

 Order 2 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Supreme Court Explains the Scope

It has been commented in Shiv Kumar Sharma v Santosh Kumari [2007] GCtR 1998 (SC) thus : - 

"In terms of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, all the reliefs which could be claimed in the suit should be prayed for. Order 2 Rule 3 provides for joinder of causes of action. Order 2 Rule 4 is an exception thereto. For joining causes of action in respect of matters covered by Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Order 2 Rule 4, no leave of the court is required to be taken. Even without taking leave of the court, a prayer in that behalf can be made. A suit for recovery of possession on declaration of one’s title and/or injunction and a suit for mesne profit or damages may involve different cause of action. For a suit for possession, there may be one cause of action; and for claiming a decree for mesne profit, there may be another. In terms of Order 2 Rule 4 of the Code, however, such causes of action can be joined and therefore no leave of the court is required to be taken. If no leave has been taken, a separate suit may or may not be maintainable but even a suit wherefore a prayer for grant of damages by way of mesne profit or otherwise is claimed, must be instituted within the prescribed period of limitation. Damages cannot be granted without payment of court fee. In a case where damages are required to be calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid but on the quantum determined by the court and the balance court fee is to be paid when a final decree is to be prepared."

"If the respondent intended to claim damages and/or mesne profit, in view of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code itself, he could have done so, but he chose not to do so. For one reason or the other, he, therefore, had full knowledge about his right. Having omitted to make any claim for damages, in our opinion, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to get the same indirectly."

"A civil court does not grant leave to file another suit. If the law permits, the plaintiff may file another suit but not on the basis of observations made by a superior court."

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. 

Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Supreme Court Highlights a Crucial Legal Aspect

Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Supreme Court Highlights a Crucial Legal Aspect

An important Judgment was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17 December 2004.

In context of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("Code") it has been commented in Bhanu Kumar Jain v Archana Kumar & Anr [2004] GCtR 3064 (SC) thus : - 

"An appeal against an ex-parte decree in terms of Section 96(2) of the Code could be filed on the following grounds: 

(i) The materials on record brought on record in the ex-parte proceedings in the suit by the plaintiff would not entail a decree in his favour, and 

(ii) The suit could not have been posted for ex-parte hearing." 

"In an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code, however, apart from questioning the correctness or otherwise of an order posting the case for ex-parte hearing, it is open to the defendant to contend that he had sufficient and cogent reasons for not being able to attend the hearing of the suit on the relevant date. When an ex-parte decree is passed, the defendant (apart from filing a review petition and a suit for setting aside the ex-parte decree on the ground of fraud) has two clear options, one, to file an appeal and another to file an application for setting aside the order in terms of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. He can take recourse to both the proceedings simultaneously but in the event the appeal is dismissed as a result whereof the ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court merges with the order passed by the appellate court, having regard to Explanation appended to Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 would not be maintainable. However, the Explanation I appended to said provision does not suggest that the converse is also true. 

In an appeal filed in terms of Section 96 of the Code having regard to Section 105 thereof, it is also permissible for an Appellant to raise a contention as regard correctness or otherwise of an interlocutory order passed in the suit subject to the conditions laid down therein."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link 

 https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 17 December 2004.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. 

Death of one of the Plaintiffs : Supreme Court Explains the Effect

Death of one of the Plaintiffs : Supreme Court Explains the Effect 

An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11 October 2022.

It has been commented in Siravarapu Appa Rao & Ors v Dokala Appa Rao [2022] GCtR 1788 (SC) thus : -

"Where there are more than one plaintiffs, the entire suit cannot be held to be abated on the death of one of the plaintiffs."

 

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link 

https://main.sci.gov.in/daily-order

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 11 October 2022.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.