Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Phani Bhusan Mukherjee And Ors. vs Rajendra Nandan Goswami And Anr. on 20 June, 1946

Lalla Ram vs Naresh Chand And Anr. on 7 December, 1951

The point is so clear that it hardly needs any support from authorities, but reference may be made to 'PHANI BHUSAN v. Rajendra Nandau' AIR (34) 1947 Cal 11, 'JIBAN KRISHNA v. Santimoyee Devi', AIR (35) 1948 Cal 366 and 'NARBADESHWARI PRASAD v. Sahib Singh', AIR (38) 1951 All 561. It follows therefore that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to split his claim, and that his second suit for recovery of Rs. 500/- was barred under Order 2 Rule 2(2).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ananthamathi And Ors. vs Thochappa Shetty And Anr. on 20 June, 1960

(20a) It seems to me that in order that the provisions of Rule 2 of Order II could be applied, two ingredients have to be established. One of these ingredients is that the cause of action on which the two suits are founded should be the same and the second is that the parties to both the suits must also be the same. That is what was pointed out by Mukerji, J. (As he then was) in Phani Bhusan v. Rajendra Nandan, AIR 1947 Cal 11.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

28. Mr. Kamdar further referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court 1 2007 (6) ALL MR 953 2 AIR 1931 Madras 705 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:04:54 ::: -28- in the case of Phani Bhusan Mukherjee and others vs. Rajendra Nandan Goswami and another1 wherein it has been held that when a previous suit is filed to recover rent for one year, though rent for three years had become due, subsequent suit against the defendants to recover rent for remaining two years was not maintainable. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was held that so far as defendant No.1 was concerned, Order II Rule 2 operated as a complete bar to the subsequent suit but so far as defendant No.2 was concerned, Order II Rule 2 was not directly applicable.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P Majmudar - Full Document

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

6.15 Dealing with the contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellants that to attract the bar under Order II rule 2 of the Code, the parties to the suits have to be the same, the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision Page 28 of 139 C/FA/558/2002 JUDGMENT of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Phani Bhushan Mukherjee and others v. Rajendra Nandan Goswani and another, AIR 1947 Calcutta 11, wherein the court held that Order II rule 2 of the Code is not based upon the doctrine of merger. It enacts a special rule that if the plaintiff was able to claim a wider and much larger relief than that to which he limited his claim in the suit, and which arises out of the same cause of action he would not be entitled to recover the balance in a subsequent suit. The object of the rule is to prevent the splitting up of the same cause of action and to prevent the same person or persons being vexed twice. To make the rule applicable, two things are essential; firstly that the previous and the present suits must arise out of the same cause of action; and secondly, they must be between the same parties. In the facts of the said case, the court held that so far as the defendant No.1 is concerned, it could not be disputed that Order II rule 2 of the Code operates as a complete bar to the said suit but so far as the defendant No.2 is concerned, Order II rule 2 is not directly applicable. Mr. Parikh submitted that in the facts of the present case also, insofar as the defendant in this suit is concerned, the suit is barred by the provisions of Order II rule 2 of the Code as he was also a defendant in the former suit. It was contended that the executor of the suit agreement was a party in both the suits. Therefore, the subsequent suit is barred against him.
Gujarat High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 1 - H Devani - Full Document
1