FRAMING OF SUITS

SUBMITTED BY

AMAN NAQVI

Roll no- 151308 B.A. LLB

SUBMITTED TO

Assistant Professor of Law

Dr. Meeta Mohini

FINAL DRAFT OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

SUBMITTED ON – OCTOBER, 31ST 2017

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

MITHAPUR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 FRAMING OF SUIT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regard to my guide
DR. Meeta Mohini Faculty of Code of Civil Procedure for his exemplary guidance,
monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of this thesis. The
blessing, help and guidance given by him time to time shall carry me a long way in the
journey of life on which I am about to embark.

I am obliged to staff members of CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

for the valuable information provided by them in their respective fields. I am grateful
for their cooperation during the period of my assignment.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my parents, brother, sisters and friends for their constant
encouragement without which this assignment would not be possible.

Thank you,

Aman Naqvi

Roll- 151308

Semester- 5th

Year -3rd

DECLARATION

[Type text] Page 2

 FRAMING OF SUIT

I hearby declare that the work which is submitted for the fulfilment of the course of
B.A.L.L.B (Hons.) at Chanakya National Law University, Patna under the supervision
of Dr. Meeta Mohini is an authentic record of my work. In this project I took help from
other sources. I have not submitted this work elsewhere.

I am fully responsible for the contents of my project report.

Sign:

Aman Naqvi
Roll- 151308
Semester- 5th
Year -3rd

[Type text] Page 3

 FRAMING OF SUIT

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................4
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................................5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS .....................................................................................................................5
HYPOTHESIS .........................................................................................................................................5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................5
SOURCES OF DATA .............................................................................................................................6
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ..........................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 1 ...........................................................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2 ...........................................................................................................................................9
FRAMING OF SUIT ...............................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 3 .........................................................................................................................................10
SUIT TO INCLUDE CLAIM ................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER 4 .........................................................................................................................................15
JOINDER OF CAUSE OF ACTION ....................................................................................................15
CHAPTER 5 .........................................................................................................................................17
OTHER RELEVANT PROVISION......................................................................................................17
CHAPTER 6 .........................................................................................................................................21
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................21
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................22

INTRODUCTION

[Type text] Page 4

 FRAMING OF SUIT

Every suit shall frame with an objective that it would bring an end to the litigation. So
the suit shall include the whole of the claim and shall sue for all the reliefs. The Order
II of CPC also provides for the joinder of cause of action. Power has been given to the
Court to order separate trials if it appears to court that joinder will delay or embarrass
the trial of the suit. And all the objections as to the misjoinder shall be taken at the
earliest possible oppurtunity.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

By doing this research, the researcher want to highlight the various provisions related to
Order II.

i. What are the essentials of framing of Suit?

ii. To know provision relating to claim and relief.
iii. To study in detail joinder of plaintiff & defendants and cause of action.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The researcher has formulated following questions:

i. What is Institution of Suit?

ii. How a suit can be framed?

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher has formulated following hypothesis, the validity of which will be tested
in course of research work. The hypothesis is that:

A test to find out whether the cause of action is the same is to see whether the same
evidence will sustain both the suits.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher will be using only doctrinal method of Research. Doctrinal method will
include library sources.

[Type text] Page 5

 FRAMING OF SUIT

SOURCES OF DATA
i.) Primary Sources
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
ii.) Secondary Sources
• Journals
• Websites
• Books

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The researcher has monetary limitations, Time limitations and Territorial limitations.

[Type text] Page 6

 FRAMING OF SUIT

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘suit’ has not been defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. According to
Chamber’s 20th Century Dictionary (1983), it is a generic term of comprehensive
signification referring to any proceeding by one person or persons against another or
others in a court of law wherein the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords
him for the redress of any injury or enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity.
In the Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) this term is defined as the proceeding
initiated by a party or parties against another in the court of law. According to some
other views, ‘suit’ includes appellate proceeding also; but it does not include an
execution proceeding. Ordinarily, suit under the CPC is a civil proceeding instituted by
the presentation of a plaint.
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.
(Order II, Rule 1). The above rule signifies that the object of the legislature appears to
be that as far as possible all matters in dispute between the parties relating to the same
transaction should be disposed of in the same suit. Where there is common question of
law and fact separate suits are neither necessary nor desirable.
Order II, Rule 2, enacts that if a plaintiff fails to sue for the whole of the claim which he
is entitled to make in respect of a cause of action in the first suit, then he is precluded
from suing in a second suit in respect of the portion so omitted.
The provisions of the rule only compel a plaintiff to include in his suit the whole of the
claim arising out of the cause of action. They do not compel him to join in the same suit
every cause of action or every claim which he has.
Bar of subsequent suit under Order II, Rule 2 will not be applicable if the identity of
cause of action in the previous suit and the subsequent suit is not established. Where
previous suit for recovery of sale price was filed, the subsequent suit for recovery of
possession on ground that they were owners is not barred under Order II, Rule 2.
The cause of action in the subsequent suit was different and distinct. In previous suit for
recovery of sale price, the plaintiffs could not claim the recovery of possession on the

[Type text] Page 7

 FRAMING OF SUIT

basis of title as title in that suit was averred by them to have been transferred to the
defendants.
Plea as to bar to second suit cannot be raised and inferred by the court in absence of
pleadings before the court. It is more so when pleadings were produced for the first
time before the Supreme Court.
The object of the rule is clearly to avoid splitting up of claims or reliefs and to prevent
multiplicity of suits. The rule is directed against two evils, the splitting up of claims and
the splitting up of remedies. It does not bar pleas in defense. The underlying principle is
that a defendant is not to be twice vexed for one and the same cause.
Order II, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. are designed to arrest the proliferation of litigation.
Order II, Rule 2 interdicts the filing of different suits in respect of multiple reliefs
springing from the same cause of action. In the event of cause of action sprouting
plurality of reliefs, the suit comprising the entirety of reliefs has to be filed to save the
bar under rule 2. This provision seeks to set at naught the series of suits on the same
cause of action. In the event of shrinking or confining the suit to some reliefs only the
subsequent suit in respect of remainder reliefs is precluded. 1

1 SAHA, A.N. Code of Civil Procedure, Vol.(III) 7th Edition

[Type text] Page 8

 FRAMING OF SUIT

Chapter 2

Parties To Suit

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
Rule 1 of Order II lays down the rule for framing of the suit. It provides that every suit
as far as practicable be so framed as to afford grounds for final decision upon the
subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning it. Thus, this rule
signifies that the object of the legislature appears to be that as far as possible all matters
in dispute between the parties relating to same transaction should be disposed of in the
same suit. Where there is a Common question of law and fact separate suits are neither
necessary nor desirable. The plaintiff being 'dominus litis' that is master of the suit, is
free to frame his suit on any basis he likes but he must always bear in mind the
consequences that will ensue in case the suit is not properly framed. Rule 1 of Order II
is intended to give effect to the maxim 'interest republicae ut sit finis litium, that is it is
in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation.2 That is why
provision is made in Rule 1 that every suit as far as practicable be framed so as to
afford ground for final decision and to prevent further litigation. Order II, Rule 1
merely prescribes a general rule. This is more in the nature of a general policy
statement than a mandatory provision.

2 Bare Act of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Professional Book Publisher.

[Type text] Page 9

 FRAMING OF SUIT

CHAPTER 3

Subject Matter In Dispute

Order II Rule 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.

Explanations- 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. 3

Illustration: A lets a house to B at a yearly of rent Rs. 1,200. The rent for the hole 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 for 1905 or 1907.

Order II, Rule 2 is mainly concerned with correct joinder of causes of action, adequate
inclusion of reliefs claimed and so forth rather than the joinder of arties.1 The rule is
based on the maxim "nemo duvet bis vexari pro unaet eadem causa," that is no person
should be vexed twice over for the same cause. Thus, both the principle of res judicata
and Rule 2 of Order II are based on the rule of law that a man shall not be twice vexed
for the same cause4.

3 Bare Act of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Professional Book Publisher.

4 JAIN’S, M.P. The Code Of Civil Procedure, 2nd Edition

[Type text] Page 10

 FRAMING OF SUIT

The object of the rule is clearly to avoid splitting of claims or reliefs and to prevent
multiplicity of suits. The rule is directed against two evils: (i) the splitting up of claims
and (ii) the splitting up of remedies. It does not bar pleas in defence. The underlying
principle is that a defendant may not be twice vexed for one and the same cause. Privy
council in Naba Kumar v. Radhashyam,4 put it that "the rule in question is intended to
deal with the vice of splitting a cause of action." Thus, the applicability of Order II,
Rule 2 is dependent on there being established one and the same cause of action in the
two suits.

The statutory principle behind Order II, Rule 2, is that a defendant or defendants
should not be vexed time and again for the same cause by splitting the claim and the
reliefs for being indicated in successive litigations. Order II, Rule 2 interdicts the filing
of different suits in respect of multiple reliefs springing from the same cause of action.
In the event of the cause of action sprouting plurality of reliefs, the suit comprising of
entirety of reliefs has to be filed to save the bar under Rule 2. The provision seeks to set
at naught the series of suit on the same cause of action. And, therefore, the fundamental
Postulate for the application of Order II, Rule 2 is that there must be one and only cause
of action before its several provisions can apply. To put, it in other words, all that Order
II, Rule 2 provides is that where there is one and the same cause of action, the plaintiff
cannot split up his cause of action and sue for one part in one suit and for another part
in another suit.' The real test for the applicability of Order I1, Rule 2 in a particular
situation was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mohd. Khalil Khan
v. Mahbub Ali Khan.5 The Court observed:

Whether the claim in new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from
that which was the foundation for the former suit.

The Supreme Court of India applied above test in State of Maharashtra v. M/s.
National Construction Co. Bombay, where first suit was filed to enforce Bank
guarantee and second suit to claim damages for breach of contract relating to which
Bank guarantee was given, it was held that relief sought in first suit was based on
different cause of action from that upon which relief in subsequent suit was founded.
And, therefore subsequent suit was not hit by Order II, Rule 2.

5 MULLA, The Code Of Civil Procedure, 14th Edition, LexisNexis

[Type text] Page 11

 FRAMING OF SUIT

Order II, Rule 2 (1) lays down a general principle and requires that the plaintiff must
include the whole of the claim which he has against the defendant in respect of the
same cause of action.2 In other words, Order II, Rule 2enjoins on the plaintiff to
include whole of the claim against defendant in respect of the same cause of action.
Thus, for example if the plaintiff has a claim of Rs. 26,000/- against the defendant, he
must include Rs. 26,000/- in the suit against the defendant. However, he may relinquish
a portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. As
such in above example the plaintiff may relinquish Rs. 1000/- of the claim so, as to
bring the same within the jurisdiction of Civil Judge (junior division) in the State of
Uttar Pradesh.

Order II, Rule 2 (2) lays down that where the plaintiff does not include whole of the
claim he is visited with the penalty provided therein. The penalty is that if the plaintiff
intentionally omits to sue or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he shall
not be allowed subsequently to sue in respect of claim so omitted. 6

Order II, Rule 2 (3) lays down that where a person is entitled to more than one relief in
respect of all the same cause of action, he may sue for all or any of the reliefs; but if he
omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he will not be
permitted afterwards to sue for any relief so omitted. Thus, Order II, Rule 2 (3) requires
that the cause of action in the earlier suit must be the same on which the subsequent suit
is based. Therefore, there must be identity of cause of action in both the suits to attract
the bar of Order II, Rule 2 (3). 7

Conditions

To make the rule applicable the Supreme Court of India laid down three conditions in
Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, they are :

(i) That the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the
previous suit was based;

(ii) That in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one
relief; and

6 Takwani, C.K. Civil Procedure (Eastern Book Company) 6th Edition

7 ibid

[Type text] Page 12

 FRAMING OF SUIT

(iii) That being thus entitled to more than one relief the plaintiff without the leave of the
Court omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed.

Examples:

(i) A mortgages three plots X, Y and Z to B. All the three form part of a single
mortgage. A, files a suit for redemption of plots X and Y: A subsequently cannot file a
redemption suit in respect of Z.

(ii) A suit by a wife for maintenance against her husband in which the only relief
claimed is maintenance, bars a subsequent suit for declaration of a charge for such
maintenance.

The Supreme Court of India held in Haridas v. Ananth Nath8, that where the plaintiff
omits to sue, without leave the Court, in respect of all the reliefs for which he is
entitled, he shall not afterwards sue for the reliefs so omitted by him. Relinquishment
need not always be express; it may be implicit by conduct

Where an earlier suit for injunction was dismissed on technical ground, the subsequent
suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is not barred by res judicata
because of the question of status of the plaintiff as lessee was not decided in the earlier
suit. The subsequent suit is also not barred by Rule 2 (3) of Order II since the causes of
action are different.

Similarly, where an earlier suit sought a decree for declaration of right and title of
plaintiffs to plaint schedule property and their possession, and title of plaintiffs was
upheld but prayer for injunction was rejected as possession was not found, subsequent
suit claiming recovery of possession, held not barred as cause of action in both suits not
same. Order II, Rule 2 is not applicable in this case. When a plea of bar is raised under
0. II, R 2, the burden is on the defendant. Production of plaint in earlier suit to show the
cause of action of that suit is mondatory.

Leave of the Court

8 MULLA, The Code Of Civil Procedure, 14th Edition, LexisNexis

[Type text] Page 13

 FRAMING OF SUIT

A Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court has held that where the plaintiff
filed a suit for mesne profits and had reserved his right to file a suit for ejectment
subsequently at a later stage with the permission of the Court and that Court had also
permitted to do so, the second suit relating to ejectment was not barred under Order
'Mule 2 (3) of C.P.C.8 Thus, where the omission of one of the reliefs is made with the
permission of the Court, a subsequent suit for the relief so omitted on the basis of the
same cause of action is not barred.9 The leave of the Court may be express or implied.1
Leave can be granted at the time discretionary.3 of the institution of the suit2 and the
power to grant the leave is granted in permission has to be obtained in the earlier suit
and cannot be subsequent suit.

Unless the defendant pleads the bar under order II, rule 2 and an issue is framed
focusing the parties on that bar to it examine or reject a suit on that ground.

Res judicata relates to the plaintiff's duty to put forth attack in support of his claim
whereas Order Procedure requires the plaintiff to claim all relief s flowing from the
same cause of action in a single suit. Two lease are different and one will not include
the other.

[Type text] Page 14

 FRAMING OF SUIT

CHAPTER 4

CAUSE OF ACTION

Order II Rule 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 cause 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. 9

Order II, Rule 3 deals with joinder of causes of action. But joinder of causes of action
itself is meaningless if parties are not involved with it. A joint reading of the provisions
of Order I, Rule 3 and Order II, Rule 3 indicate the question of the joinder of parties
also involves the joinder of the causes of action. The simple reason is that a person is
made a party in a suit because there is a cause of action against him and when causes of
action are joined, the parties are also joined

Order II, Rule 3 provides for the joinder of several causes of action and says that a
plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant,
or some defendants jointly or several plaintiffs having causes of action in which they
are jointly interested against the same defendant or defendants jointly may unite them
in one suit.

As already stated joinder of causes of action also involves the joinder of the parties, the
provisions of Order II, Rule3 has to be read subject to provisions of Rules 4 and 5
below as also Order 1, Rule I and Order I Rule 3 dealing with joinder of plaintiffs and
defendants respectively.8 When the conditions laid down in the rule are satisfied the

9 Bare Act of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Professional Book Publisher

[Type text] Page 15

 FRAMING OF SUIT

suit is maintainable without regard to the question of convenience or mconvenience.9

What is permitted under this rule is not only joinder of causes of action against the
same defendant or same defendants but also joinder of different causes of action against
different defendants if the plaintiff is able to bring his case within the purview of Order
I Rule 3.

For the application of Order I, Rule 3 and Order II, Rule 3 there must be "common
question of law and fact" as also "the same act or transaction or same file same series of
acts or transactions" in respect of which or out of which the alleged right to relief
arises.

[Type text] Page 16

 FRAMING OF SUIT

CHAPTER 5

OTHER RELEVANT PROVISION

Order II Rule 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.10

Order II, Rule 4 deals with claims to he joined in a suit for the recovery of immovable
property. In other words, this rule deals with what may be called as joinder of claims. It
declares that no claims other than these specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 4 of
Order II shall be joined without the leave of the Court in a suit for the "recovery of
immovable property". The object appears to be not to allow joinder with a claim for the
recovery of immovable Property of claims wholly dissimilar in nature.4 However, if
claims which are dissimilar in nature are to be joined along with claim for the recovery
of immovable property, the leave of the Court has to be obtained.

In a suit for the 'recovery of immovable property' following three claims Can he joined,
and no other claim, except with the leave of the Court:

(i) Claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed;

(ii) Claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property is held; and

(iii) claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action.

10 Bare Act of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Professional Book Publisher

[Type text] Page 17

 FRAMING OF SUIT

Thus, A agrees to sell his house along with equipments (furniture etc.) to B. On
appointed time A fails to deliver the possession of house along with equipments
(furniture etc.) to B. B files a suit against A for the recovery of the, possession of house.
In that suit B can join the following claims:

(i) Claim for mesne profits: after the appointed day, that is the date for delivery of the
house, whatever profit A obtains, it belongs to B;

(ii) Claim for damages on account of breach of the contract; and

(iii) Claim for recovery of equipment (furniture etc.).

No other claim except the above three may be joined in the suit. However, with the
leave of the Court other claims may also be joined.

In a suit for establishing title to an immovable property, in which no claim is made for
possession, is not a suit for 'the recovery of immovable property" within the meaning of
this rule so as to require the permission of the Court for its joinder with another cause
of action. Similarly, an action to restrain a tresspass on immovable property is not a suit
"for the recovery of immovable property". 11

Order II Rule 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. 12

Order II, Rule 5 declares that no claim by or against an executor, administrator or heir
as such shall be joined with claims by or against him personally, except when :

(i) The claims by or against him in personal capacity are alleged to arise with reference
to the estate he represents; or

(ii) The claims are such that he was entitled to or liable for them jointly with the
deceased whom he represents.

11 MULLA, The Code Of Civil Procedure, 14th Edition, LexisNexis

12 Bare Act of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Professional Book Publisher

[Type text] Page 18

 FRAMING OF SUIT

The object of the rule is to prevent an executor or administrator from intermingling the
assets, of his testator with his own monies.5

Thus for instance A is a trustee in a trust. For the conduct of the affairs of the trust he
(A) purchases station dry from M/s. Ram Lai & Sons worth Rs. 4000. Payment has not
been made for the stationary. A purchases stationary from the same shop, that is M/s
Ram Lal & Sons, worth Rs. 1000 for his personal use. Payment has not been made for
this stationary also. If M/s. Ram Lal & Sons files a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4000/-
being the prince for stationary supplied to A as trustee, they cannot join in the same suit
the claim of Rs. 1000/- being price of stationary supplied to A for his personal use, that
is his personal capacity.

Order II Rule 6

Power of Court to order 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. 13

Rule 6 has been substituted by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1976 so as to
empower the Court to order separate trials where joinder of causes of action may cause
embarrassment, delay or inconvenience. This rule does not apply to the cases of
misjoinder, but to cases where several causes of actions have been joined according to
rules properly in one suit and the causes of action so joined cannot conveniently be
tried together. 14

Order II Rule7

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 not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived.

Provisions of Order II, Rule 7 that is objection on the ground of misjoinder of causes of
action are analogous to that Order 1, Rule 13 dealing with objections on the ground of

13 ibid
14 Takwani, C.K. Civil Procedure (Eastern Book Company) 6th Edition

[Type text] Page 19

 FRAMING OF SUIT

non-joinder or misjoinder of parties. According to the provisions such objection need to

be taken at the earliest opportunity, and if not taken it shall be deemed to have been
waived.

[Type text] Page 20

 FRAMING OF SUIT

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

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.
(Order II, Rule 1). The above rule signifies that the object of the legislature appears to
be that as far as possible all matters in dispute between the parties relating to the same
transaction should be disposed of in the same suit. Where there is common question of
law and fact separate suits are neither necessary nor desirable.

Order II, Rule 2 is mainly concerned with correct joinder of causes of action, adequate
inclusion of reliefs claimed and so forth rather than the joinder of arties.1 The rule is
based on the maxim "nemo duvet bis vexari pro unaet eadem causa," that is no person
should be vexed twice over for the same cause. Thus, both the principle of res judicata
and Rule 2 of Order II are based on the rule of law that a man shall not be twice vexed
for the same cause.

Order II, Rule 3 provides for the joinder of several causes of action and says that a
plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant,
or some defendants jointly or several plaintiffs having causes of action in which they
are jointly interested against the same defendant or defendants jointly may unite them
in one suit.

In a suit for establishing title to an immovable property, in which no claim is made for
possession, is not a suit for 'the recovery of immovable property" within the meaning of
this rule so as to require the permission of the Court for its joinder with another cause
of action. Similarly, an action to restrain a tresspass on immovable property is not a suit
"for the recovery of immovable property"

[Type text] Page 21

 FRAMING OF SUIT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS-

➢ Bare Act of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Professional Book Publisher.

➢ SAHA, A.N. Code of Civil Procedure, Vol.(III) 7th Edition.
➢ Takwani, C.K. Civil Procedure (Eastern Book Company) 6th Edition.
➢ JAIN’S, M.P. The Code Of Civil Procedure, 2nd Edition,
➢ MULLA, The Code Of Civil Procedure, 14th Edition, LexisNexis.

[Type text] Page 22