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

1987 Supreme(AP) 202

RAMA RAO
KODURU VARALAKSHMAMMA – Appellant
Versus
Tata Raghavulu – Respondent


RAMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petition arises out of a Petition filed under Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C filed by the plaintiffs seeking to reserve thier right to file a separate suit against the defendants for recovery of the maktha due for the year 1980-81. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery ofmaktha for the years 1977-78, 78-79 and 79-80. But, the claim for the year 1980-81 is not included in the suit and filed an application to reserve their right to file a separate suit for the maktha due for the year 1980-81 and filed this application to save the bar under order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. This application is resisted by the defendants on the ground that this petition is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have chosen to file a suit for the arrears of rent for some years only and they cannot subsequently sue for the rents already, due by the time the suit is filed and this application for reserving the right to file a separate suit is not contemplated under Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. The Court below held that a subsequent suit for recovery of rent for the year 1980-81 forms part of the cause of action or the relief for the earlier years and as such Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. is a bar for f



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