Skip to main content

Order 2 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure - FRAME OF SUIT (THE FIRST Schedule)

 Order 2 CPC Description

1. Frame of suit


Every suit shall as far as practicable be framed so as to afford ground for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them.


2. Suit to include the whole claim.


(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in Order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.


(2) Relinquishment of part of claim-Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.


(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs-A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.


Explanation-For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.


Illustration


A lets a house to B at a yearly rent of Rs. 1200. The rent for the whole of the years 1905, 1906 and 1907 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 1908 only for the rent due for 1906. A shall not afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1907.


STATE AMENDMENT


Uttar Pradesh.-In Order II, Rule 2.-


(a) the existing Explanation shall be numbered as Explanation I, and after Explanation I, as so numbered the following Explanation II shall be inserted, namely:-


"Explanation II.-For the purposes of this rule a claim for ejectment of the defendant from immovable property let out to him and a claim for money due from him on account of rent or compensation for use and occupation of that property, shall be deemed to be claims in respect of distinct causes of action":


(b) for the illustration, the following illustration shall be substituted, namely:-


"Illustration.-A lets immovable property to B at a yearly rent. The rent for the whole of the years 1905,1906 and 1907 is due and unpaid, and the tenancy is determined before A sues B in 1908, only for the rent due for 1906. A may afterwards sue B for ejectment but not for the rent due for 1905 or 1907".


[Vide U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act 57 of 1976), sec. 4 (w.e.f. 1-1-1977) ].


3. 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.


4. Only certain claims to be joined for recovery of immovable property.


No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except-


(a) claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof;


(b) claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held; and


(c) claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action:


Provided that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prevent any party in a suit for foreclosure or redemption from asking to be put into possession of the mortgaged property.


5. Claims by or against executor, administrator or heir


No claim by or against an executor, administrator or heir, as such, shall be joined with claims by or against him personally unless the last mentioned claims are alleged to arise with reference to the estate in respect of which the plaintiff or defendant sues or is sued as executor, administrator or heir, or are such as he was entitled to, or liable for, jointly with the deceased person whom he represents.


1[6. Power of Court to separate trials.


Where it appears to the Court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the Court may Order separate trials or make such other Order as may be expedient in the interests of justice.]


1. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 53 for rule 6 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


7. Objections as to misjoinder


All objections on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection to so taken shall be deemed to have been waived.


HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS


Delhi:-


"8. (1) Where an objection, duly taken, has been allowed by the Court, the plaintiff shall be permitted to select the cause of action with which he will proceed, and shall, within a time to be fixed by the Court, amend the plaint (by striking out the remaining causes of action).


(2) When the plaintiff has selected the cause of action with which he will proceed, the Court shall pass an Order giving him time within which to submit (amended plaints for the remaining causes of action) and for making up the court-fees that may be necessary. Should the plaintiff not comply with the Court's Order, the Court shall proceed as provided in Rule 18 of Order VI and as required by the provisions of the Court-fees Act." (w.e.f. 9-6-1959).


Himachal Pradesh:-


"8. (1) Where an objection, duly taken, has been allowed by the Court, the plaintiff shall be permitted to select the cause of action with which he will proceed, and shall, within a time to be fixed by the Court, amend the plaint (by striking out the remaining causes of action).


(2) When the plaintiff has selected the cause of action with which he will proceed, the Court shall pass an Order giving him time within which to submit (amended plaints for the remaining causes of action) and for making up the court-fees that may be necessary. Should the plaintiff not comply with the Court's Order, the Court shall proceed as provided in Rule 18 of Order VI and as required by the provisions of the Court-fees Act." (w.e.f. 9-6-1959).


Kerala:-


In Order II, after rule 7, insert the following sub-rule, namely:-


"8. (1) Where an objection, duly taken, has been allowed by the Court, the plaintiff shall be permitted to select the cause of action with which he will proceed, and shall, within a time to be fixed by the Court, amend the plaint suitably.


(2) When the plaintiff has selected the cause of action with which he will proceed, the Court shall pass an Order giving him time within which to submit (the amended plaints for the remaining causes of action) and for making up the court-fees that may be necessary. Should the plaintiff not comply with the Court's Order, the Court shall proceed as provided in Rule 18 of Order VI and as required by the provisions of the Court-fees Act." (w.e.f. 9-6-1959).


Punjab:-


"8. (1) Where an objection, duly taken, has been allowed by the Court, the plaintiff shall be permitted to select the cause of action with which he will proceed, and shall, within a time to be fixed by the Court, amend the plaint (by striking out the remaining causes of action).


(2) When the plaintiff has selected the cause of action with which he will proceed, the Court shall pass an Order giving him time within which to submit (amended plaints for the remaining causes of action) and for making up the court-fees that may be necessary. Should the plaintiff not comply with the Court's Order, the Court shall proceed as provided in Rule 18 of Order VI and as required by the provisions of the Court-fees Act." (w.e.f. 9-6-1959).


[Vide Notification No. 33/SRO, dated 12th May, 1909.]


Rajasthan:-


"8. (1) Where such objection, has been allowed by the Court, the plaintiff shall be permitted to select the cause of action with which he will proceed, and shall, within a time to be fixed by the Court, amend the plaint (by striking out the remaining causes of action).


(2) When the plaintiff has selected the cause of action with which he will proceed, the Court may on his application pass an Order giving him time within which to submit (amended plaints for the remaining causes of action) and for making up the court-fees that may be necessary. Should the plaintiff not comply with the Court's Order, the Court shall proceed as provided in Rule 18 of Order VI and as required by the provisions of the Court-fees Act." (w.e.f. 14-8-1954).


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more