1902 (2) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Plaintiffs' Current Suit Not Barred by Prior Proceedings

The court held that the plaintiffs' current suit was not barred by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. It determined that the former suit did not ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Definition and scope of 'cause of action.'3. Joinder of defendants and causes of action.4. Precedents and authoritative interpretations.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code:The primary issue is whether the plaintiffs are barred by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code from bringing the current suit due to their omission to include the present claim in their former suit (O.S. No. 490 of 1687). The plaintiffs were aware that the land now sued for was in the possession of the current defendant and that it formed part of their father's estate at the time of the former suit. However, the former suit was for different land (Schedule B) and was against a different defendant.2. Definition and Scope of 'Cause of Action':The judgment elaborates that the term 'cause of action' means 'every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed; every fact which the defendant would have a right to traverse.' The cause of action is tied to the grounds set forth in the plaint and not to the defense. In this case, although the ground of title and the causes of action arose at the same time (the death of the plaintiffs' mother), the properties and defendants in the two suits are different. The court emphasized that the cause of action must be specific to the defendant's interest in the subject matter.3. Joinder of Defendants and Causes of Action:The court referred to Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires the plaint to show that the defendant is interested in the subject matter and liable to answer the plaintiff's demand. Section 43 mandates that every suit must include the whole claim arising from the cause of action for which the suit is brought. The court clarified that the former suit included the whole claim against the defendant therein concerning Schedule B and did not necessitate including the claim related to Schedule A, as the defendants and subject matters were different.4. Precedents and Authoritative Interpretations:The judgment cited several precedents to support its conclusions:- Pittapur Raja v. Suriya Rau: The Privy Council explained that Section 43 does not require every suit to include every cause of action but the whole claim arising out of the cause of action for which the suit is brought.- Jehan Bebee v. Saivuk Ram: The Full Bench of the N.W.P. High Court held that heirs are not obligated to make all alienees parties to the first suit, thereby not forfeiting future rights of suit against them due to omission.- Rao Kurrun Singh v. Fyz Ali Khan: The Privy Council reversed a Full Bench decision, emphasizing that the second suit was based on a different cause of action from the first and thus not barred by Section 7 of Act VIII of 1859.The court also discussed the implications of joinder rules under Sections 28 and 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, noting that plaintiffs can join different defendants in one suit if the right to relief exists severally in respect of the same matter.Conclusion:The court concluded that the plaintiffs' current suit is not barred by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. The former suit did not include the whole claim against the current defendant regarding Schedule A, as the causes of action and defendants were different. The judgment reversed the lower appellate court's decision and remanded the appeal for disposal on the merits, with costs to be determined in the cause.