SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Cal) 138

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, AJIT KUMAR NAYAK
SHEELA ADHIKARI – Appellant
Versus
RABINDRA NATH ADHIKARI – Respondent


A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) -CAN a Court return a plaint under the provision Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure solely on the ground that some of the causes of action united in the plaint are not triable by it. for want of territorial jurisdiction, even though the other causes of action joined therein are within such jurisdiction? An affirmative answer to this question will result in dismissal of the appeal while a negative answer will require the appeal to be allowed. For the reasons stated, herein below, we answer the question in the negative.

( 2 ) UNDER Order 2, Rule 3 (1) of the Code, a plaintiff can unite any number of causes of action against the same defendant. But since the Rules in the First Schedule of the Code cannot override or outweigh the Sections in the body of the Code, Rule 3 (1) of Order 2 as to joinder of causes of action must be read subject to the provisions of Code relating to place of suing as provided in Sections 16-20 of the Code. This would have been the position in law even without the words "save as otherwise provided" with which Rule 3 (1) begins and these words have only made it more explicit what would have irresistibly followed even







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top