Skip to content


Prabhulal and anr. Vs. Lalaram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 1960
Judge
Reported inAIR1960MP315
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 2, Rule 2
AppellantPrabhulal and anr.
RespondentLalaram and ors.
Advocates:G.P. Patankar, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredSheoshankar Dayal v. Sheoshankar Sahai
Excerpt:
.....convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - code may well be treated as an exception, in that it lays down that successive claims arising under one obligation shall be deemed to constitute one cause of action. this illustration brings out that meaning more clearly......by the additional district judge, morena.2. in short the facts are that the plaintiff brought a suit in respect of certain dealings of the defendant recorded in his khata. the defendant inter alia objected that in so far as the plaintiff had filed a suit earlier regarding some other items of the khata, this suit was barred by order 2 rule 2 civil procedure code. the trial court upheld this contention and dismissed the suit. on appeal, the additional district judge, morena, held that there was no splitting of the claim and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.3. the learned counsel, for the appellant relying upon illustration given under order 2 rule 2, contends that the present suit is. barred. but this argument overlooks the fact that according to the.....
Judgment:

A.H. Khan, J.

1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against an order of remand made by the Additional District Judge, Morena.

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff brought a suit in respect of certain dealings of the defendant recorded in his Khata. The defendant inter alia objected that in so far as the plaintiff had filed a suit earlier regarding some other items of the Khata, this suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court upheld this contention and dismissed the suit. oN appeal, the Additional District Judge, Morena, held that there was no splitting of the claim and remanded the case to the trial Court for further proceedings.

3. The learned counsel, for the appellant relying upon illustration given under Order 2 Rule 2, contends that the present suit is. barred. But this argument overlooks the fact that according to the Explanation to Order 2 Rule 2, if successive claims arise out of the same obligation, they are deemed to constitute one cause of action. But in the present case, obligation in respect of each item of the Khata is a separate entity. They are not successive claims arising out of one obligation. It has been observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council, Saminathan Chetty v. Palaniappa Chetty, 41 Ind App 142, that the rule (contained in Order 2 Rule 2) is directed to securing the exhaustion of the relief in respect of a cause of action and not to the inclusion in one and the same action of different causes of action, even though they arise from the same transaction. This view appears to have been followed by the Nagpur High Court in Sheoshankar Dayal v. Sheoshankar Sahai, AIR 1947 Nag 176,

4. (sic) (The rule against) splitting of claim aims at avoiding multiplicity of suits in respect of the same cause of action. The essence of the rule is that every suit shall include the whole of the claims arising from one and the same cause of action. The latter part of the Explanation to Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. Code may well be treated as an exception, in that it lays down that successive claims arising under one obligation shall be deemed to constitute one cause of action. In other words, although separate causes of action would ordinarily entitle the plaintiff to file separate suits, but where successive claims arise from one obligation, though they may give rise to several causes of action yet in the circumstances, all causes of action will be treated as one cause of action. This illustration brings out that meaning more clearly.

5. Since I have held that each entry in the Khata is a separate obligation, this case does not attract the application of Older 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code.

6. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //