Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Kalisetti Subbarayudu And Ors. vs Pagadala Balaramayya on 9 February, 1955

Kishor Nandlal Shah vs Ketan Kantilal Thakkar on 16 September, 2009

29. Mr. Kamdar has further placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kalisetti Subbarayudu and others vs. Pagadala Balaramayya2 wherein it has been held that where all the plaintiffs in the previous suit were entitled to file the previous suit being jointly interested against the defendant within the meaning of Order II Rule 3 and could not have contended that Order II Rule 2 would not be a bar to a subsequent suit by them, the fact that only one of the plaintiffs in the previous suit filed the subsequent suit would not in law make any difference.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P Majmudar - Full Document

Karkardooma Courts vs Sh. Mohinder Singh on 28 April, 2008

37.In the case at hand, the relief of possession prayed for by the plaintiff is based on a subsequent and distinct cause of action. Relief of possession could only have been asked only if and if the defendant was a trespasser in respect of the room and kitchen of the suit property in question. Until and unless there was a declaration to this effect cause of action could not be said to have been arisen in favour of the plaintiff. It is well settled that the bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC is to be looked into from the point of view of the plaintiff's claim and not from the point of view of the defence (Kali Setty Subbarayadu V. Balaramayya, AIR 1955 Andhra 194). What has to be looked into is the plaint and the facts relied upon to constitute the cause of action. The present cause of action is based on the Court having declared the defendant as the trespasser.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karkardooma Courts vs Sh. Mohinder Singh on 28 April, 2008

37.In the case at hand, the relief of possession prayed for by the plaintiff is based on a subsequent and distinct cause of action. Relief of possession could only have been asked only if and if the defendant was a trespasser in respect of the room and kitchen of the suit property in question. Until and unless there was a declaration to this effect cause of action could not be said to have been arisen in favour of the plaintiff. It is well settled that the bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC is to be looked into from the point of view of the plaintiff's claim and not from the point of view of the defence (Kali Setty Subbarayadu V. Balaramayya, AIR 1955 Andhra 194). What has to be looked into is the plaint and the facts relied upon to constitute the cause of action. The present cause of action is based on the Court having declared the defendant as the trespasser.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Navnithbhai Harmanbhai Patel vs Ambalal Kalidas Patel Since Deceased ... on 21 August, 2018

the case of Kalisetti Subbarayudu and others v. Pagadala Balramayy, AIR 1955 Andhra 194, was referred wherein it has been held that, where all the plaintiffs in the previous suit were entitled to file the previous suit being jointly interested against the defendant within the meaning of Order II, rule 3 and could not have contended that Order II rule 2 would not be a bar to a subsequent suit by them, the fact that only one of the plaintiffs in the previous suit filed the subsequent suit would not in law make any difference. The court held that Order II rule 2 is aimed against multiplicity of suits in respect of the same cause of action. The cause of action means every fact which will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment. If the evidence to support the two claims is different, then the causes of action are also different. The cause of action in the two suits may be considered to be the same if in substance they are identical.
Gujarat High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 1 - H Devani - Full Document
1