GURBUX SINGH versus BHOORALAL

GURBUX SINGH versus BHOORALAL

The bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was not established because the plaintiff’s pleading in the earlier suit (C.S. 28 of 1950) was not placed on record; hence, the identity of the causes of action between the two suits could not be determined. The technical plea is not maintainable without such evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Gurbux Singh; Respondent: Bhooralal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 April 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Supreme Court Appeal From Rajasthan High Court's Decision Dismissing Second Appeal and Affirming Remand Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, Res Judicata (distinguished), Bar to Subsequent Suit, Suit for Possession, Suit for Mesne Profits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurbux Singh

Appellant

Bhooralal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Supreme Court Appeal From Rajasthan High Court's Decision Dismissing Second Appeal and Affirming Remand Order

  1. 1 Whether a subsequent suit for possession and mesne profits is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, due to an earlier suit for mesne profits regarding the same property.

Ratio Decidendi

The bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was not established because the plaintiff’s pleading in the earlier suit (C.S. 28 of 1950) was not placed on record; hence, the identity of the causes of action between the two suits could not be determined. The technical plea is not maintainable without such evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of remand by Additional District Judge affirmed.
  • Suit to be tried on merits in accordance with law.