RAMA RAO
KODURU VARALAKSHMAMMA – Appellant
Versus
Tata Raghavulu – Respondent
( 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.