9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the maintainability of a suit for possession and mesne profits. 2. Conflict of judicial opinion on whether suits for possession and mesne profits are based on the same cause of action. 3. Requirement for the defendant to establish the same cause of action in a plea under Order 2 Rule 2. 4. Necessity of producing the pleadings from the previous suit to establish the bar under Order 2 Rule 2. Analysis: The case involved a dispute where the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of property and mesne profits against the defendant. The defendant raised a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, contending that the suit was barred as the plaintiff had omitted to claim possession in a previous suit. The trial court accepted this plea, leading to an appeal by the plaintiff. The appellate court considered the conflict of judicial opinions on whether suits for possession and mesne profits arise from the same cause of action. The District Judge, on appeal, set aside the dismissal of the suit, emphasizing the need for evidence to establish the bar under Order 2 Rule 2. The defendant then appealed to the High Court, which upheld the District Judge's decision. The High Court highlighted the importance of proving the same cause of action in both suits to succeed in a plea under Order 2 Rule 2. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff's reference to the previous suit for mesne profits should establish the bar was rejected. The High Court emphasized the necessity of producing the pleadings from the previous suit to substantiate the plea under Order 2 Rule 2. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the requirement for the defendant to establish the same cause of action in both suits to succeed in a plea under Order 2 Rule 2. The Court rejected the defendant's argument that the reference to the previous suit in the plaintiff's pleadings was sufficient to establish the bar, emphasizing the need for producing the actual pleadings from the previous suit. The Court upheld the order of remand for the trial court to decide the case on its merits, emphasizing the importance of proving the identity of the cause of action in both suits for a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 to succeed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating the necessity of proving the same cause of action in both suits to establish a bar under Order 2 Rule 2. The Court emphasized the importance of producing the pleadings from the previous suit to substantiate such a plea, affirming the lower courts' decisions and ordering a trial on the merits of the case.
|
