AlL Scope of application. (1) The provisions of this Code shali apply from the day of its co- ming into force to all suits pending on such day and instituted. the code of civil procedure (punjab amendment) act latest amendments in pakistan mulla civil procedure code pdf cpc pdf section 94 cpc pakistan order. Short title and commencement. (1) This Act may be called the Code of Criminal Procedure, , and. It shall come Into force on the first day of July,
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|ePub File Size:||19.40 MB|
|PDF File Size:||20.19 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
provisions of this Code in those matters of procedure upon which any special does not include a Civil Court having original jurisdiction under this Code to try. Reference to Code of Civil Procedure and other repealed enactments. SCHEDULES . [ Pakistan] and is not established or continued by. 4. [the. 5. [ Federal. Short title, commencement and extent- (1) This Act may be cited as the Code of Civil Procedure,. (2) It shall come into force on the first day of January.
A files another suit for injunctions on the ground that he had become an owner of the property by adverse possession. In a petition for compensation in a road accident case, the claimant s may join three parties i. Omission of section 7 of Act V of If a party remained failed to amend after the order of amendment, within the time specified for that purpose in the order or if no time is specified, then within 14 days from the date of the order, he shall not later on be permitted to amend after expiry of the specified time or of 14 days unless e time is extended by the court. The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree" question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Amatter is actually in issue when it is alleged by one party and denied or admitted by the other. III Constructively in issue: IV A matter can be said be constructively in issue when it "might and ought" to have been made a ground of defence or attack in the former suit.
IV Collaterally or incidentally in issue: Acollateral or incidental issue means an issue which is ancillary to the direct and substantive issue. It refers to a matter in respect of which no relief is claimed and yet it is put in issue to enable the Court to adjudicate upon the matter which is directly and substantially in issue. Decisions on the matters collateral and incidental to the main issues in the case will not operate as res-judicata.
A sues B for the rent due: B pleads abatement of the rent on the ground that the actual area of the land is less than that mentioned in the lease deed. The Court, however, finds the area greater than that shown in the lease deed. The finding as to the excess area, being ancillary to the direct and substantial issue, is not res judicata. It was held in re Gangabai Vs Chhabubai AIR SC 20 that in order to operate as res judicata the finding must be one disposing of a matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and the issue should have been heard and finally decided by the court trying such suit.
A matter which is collaterally or incidentally in issue for the purposes of deciding the matter which is directly in issue in the case cannot be made the basis of a plea of res judicata.
The question whether a matter was directly and substantially in issue or merely collaterally or incidentally in issue must be decided on the facts of each case. In Vithal Yashwant v. Shikandarkhan,AIR SC the Court held that "It is well settled that if the final decision in any matter at issue between the parties is based by a Court on its decision on more than one point - each of which by itself would be sufficient for the ultimate decision- the decision on each of these points operates as res judicata between the parties.
A sues B i - for a declaration of title to certain lands; and ii - for the rent of those lands. B deniesA's title to the lands and also contend that no rent is due. In this case, there are two matters in respect of which relief is claimed, viz. Both these matters are, therefore, directly and substantially in issue. Conditions to apply S. Matter in Issue: The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually or constructively in the former suit.
Same Parties: The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. Such parties must have been litigating under the same title in the former suit. Competent Court: The court which decides of the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequent raised.
Final decision of former suit: The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the former suit. Constructive Res-Judicata Prayer for the same relief in the subsequent suit The doctrine of constructive Res-judicata is provided in the Explanation IV of section 11 which explains that where the parties have had an opportunity of controverting a matter, that should be taken to be the same S tu d yn a m a.
The object of Expl. IV is to compel the plaintiff or the defendant to take all the grounds of attack or defence which were open to him.
The rule of Constructive res judicata is an artificial form of res judicata, and provides that if a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he should not be permitted to take that plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding with reference to the same subject matter. That clearly is opposed to consideration of Public Policy.
Besides, if such a course is allowed to be adopted, the doctrine of finality of judgments pronounced by Courts would also be materially affected. In Forward Construction Co. IV is that where the parties have had an opportunity of controverting a matter that should be taken to be the same thing as if the matter had been actually controverted and decided. It is true that where a matter has been constructively in issue it can not be said to have beer actually heard and decided.
It could only be deemed to have been heard and decided. In Workmen, C. When any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made then such a matter in the eye of law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as decided".
Afiles a suit against B for declaration that he is entitled to certain lands as heir of C. The suit is dismissed. The subsequent suit, claiming the same property on the ground of adverse possession, is barred by constructive res judicata. A files a suit against B to recover money on a pro-note. B contends that the promissory note was obtained from him by undue influence.
The objection is overruled and suit is decreed.
B cannot challenge the promissory note on the ground of coercion or fraud on subsequent suit, in as much as he ought to have taken that defence in the former suit. As a mortgagor A sues B for redemption of certain property alleging that he has mortgaged it with possession to B. The mortgage is not proved and the suit is dismissed. Afiles another suit against B for possession of the same property claiming to be the owner thereof.
The suit is not barred. A sues B for a declaration that he is entitled to certain property as an heir of X. A files another suit for injunctions on the ground that he had become an owner of the property by adverse possession. This ground was available to him even at the time of previous suit but was not taken at that time. The subsequent suit is barred. Section 11 is not exhaustive and the principle which motivates that section can be extended to cases which do not fall strictly within the letter of Law.
The principle of res judicata is convinced in the larger public interest, which requires that all litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. Waiver of Plea of res-judicata: The plea of res judicata is not one, which affects the jurisdiction of the Court.
The doctrine of res jUdicata belongs to the domain of procedure and the party may waive the plea of res judicata.
Similarly, the Court may decline to go into the question of res judicata on the ground that it has not been properly raised in the proceedings or issues. Res-judicata between co-defendants: Amatter may operate as res-judicata between co- defendants and co- plaintiffs if the following conditions are satisfied: There must be conflict of interest between the co-defendants.
It must be necessary to decide that conflict in order to give relief to the plaintiff.
The question between the co- defendants must have been finally decided; and d. The co- defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. The decision regarding the construction of the will on rival claims of the defendants will operate as res-judicata in any subsequent suit by any of the defendants against the rest. Distinction between Res Sub — Judice S.
The principle of res- judicata applies 28 in between two stages in the same Iitigation ". It is well settled that principle of res-judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings.
Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the 29 subsequent stage of that proceeding ….. Issue Estoppel: An issue or fact of law which has been determined in an earlier proceeding cannot be raised in a subsequent proceeding.
The court has few inherent power in the interest of finality not to allow a particular issue which has already been litigated to be reopened.
Res-judicata Res Sub-Judice 1. It applies to a matter adjudicated upon Res- judicatum 2. It bars the trial of a suit or an issue, which has been decided in a former suit.
It applies to a matter pending trial sub-Judice It bars trial of a suit which is pending decision in a previously institute suit. Res-judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine of issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If such an issue is decided against him, he would be 30 estopped from raising the same in the later proceeding.
Criminal Proceedings: The doctrine of res-judicata is of universal application, which applies even to criminal proceedings. Once a person is acquitted or convicted by a competent criminal court, he cannot once again, be tried for the same offence. Writ Petitions: The General principle of res-judicata applies even to Writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. It would not be open to a party to ignore the judgment passed on a writ petition filed by a party under Article , which is considered on merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, and again move the High Court under Article or the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same facts and for obtaining the same or 31 similar orders or writs.
Writ Petition and Constructive Res-Judicata: The question whether the rule of constructive res-judicata can be applied to writ petitions, was first answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amolgamated Coalfields Ltd. It held that "In our opinion, constructive res-judicata which is a special and artificial form of res-judicata enacted by Section 11 of the code should not generally be applied to writ petitions filed underArticle 32 orArticle AIR SC, the Court had decided that the principle of constructive res-judicata 32 33 also applies to writ petitions.
The principle of res-judicata constructive res-judicata is not applicable to the writ petition of Hebeas Corpus. Res-judicate and Estoppel: Res-judicata is really estoppel by verdict or estoppel by judgment record.
The rule of constructive res-judicate is nothing else but a rule of estoppel. Even then, the doctrine of res- judicata differs in essentials particulars from the doctrine of estoppel. It results from a decision of the Court.
Estoppel flows from the act of parties. The rule is based upon public policy, viz that there should be an end to litigation. It bars multiplicity of suits. It proceeds upon the doctrine of equity; that he who by his conduct, has induced another to alter his position to his disadvantage cannot turn round and take advantage of such alteration of the other's position.
Affects the jurisdiction: It ousts the jurisdiction of a court to try a case and precludes an enquiry in limine. In other words, estoppel prevents multiplicity of representations. Stop the Party: It prohibits a man averring the same thing twice in successive litigations. It is only a rule of evidence and shuts the mouth of a party.
This rule presumes conclusively the truth of the decision in the former suit. It binds both the parties to a litigation. Estoppel prevents him from saying one thing at one time and the opposite at another. The rule of estoppel prevents a party from denying what he has once called the truth.
The term foreign Court has been defined in s. The judgment of a foreign Court is enforced on the principle that where a Court of Competent Jurisdiction has adjudicated upon a claim, a legal obligation arises to satisfy that claim.
Section 13 embodies the principle of res-judicata in foreign judgments. This provision embodies the principle of private International Law that a judgment delivered by a foreign Court of competent jurisdiction can be enforced in India. A sues B in a foreign Court. The judgment will operate as a bar to a fresh suit byAagainst B in India on the same cause of action.
Conclusive Nature: Section 13 of the Code provides that a foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between- parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except as specified in clauses a to f of Sec. When Foreign Judgment Not Binding: A foreign judgment must be pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction and must be by a Court competent both by the law of the State which has constituted it and in an International sense and it must have directly adjudicated upon the 'matter' which pleaded as res- S tu d yn a m a.
Only the judgment and not the reasons for the judgment is conclusive. Foreign Judgment Not on Merits: A judgment is said to be given on merits when, after taking evidence and application of mind, the Judges decide the case one-way or the other.
The dismissal of suit for default of appearance or non-production of the document by the plaintiff or passing of decree due to default of defendant in furnishing security are not on merits and can not be conclusive.
The mistake of International or Indian Law must be apparent on the face of the proceedings. In Narsimha Rao V. Venkata Lakshmi 3 SCC, the Court held that "when a foreign judgment is founded on a jurisdiction or on a ground not recognized by International or Indian Law, it is a judgment which is in defiance of the law.
Hence, it is not conclusive of the matter adjudicated therein and, therefore, not enforceable in this country. Foreign Judgment Opposed to Natural Justice: The judgment pronounced by a Foreign Court must e after the observation of the judicial process, i. The judgment to be conclusive must be composed of impartial persons, act fairly, without bias, and in good faith; it must give reasonable notice to the parties to the dispute and to afford each party adequate opportunity of presenting his case.
Foreign Judgment Obtained by Fraud: It is the fundamental Principle of Private international Law that a Foreign Judgment is obtained by fraud, it will not operate as res-judicata. It is the settled preposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eye of law.
It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings. It is implicit that the foreign law and foreign 35 judgment would not offend against our public policy. Thus, a foreign judgment. Presumption as to Foreign Judgments: Section 14 provides that "the Court shall presume, upon the reduction of any document purporting to be certified copy of the foreign judgment, that such judgment pronounced by a Court of Competent jurisdiction unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.
Aforeign judgment may be enforced by institution of 36 a suit within a period of 3 years from the date of the foreign judgment. Section 15 to 20 of C. Rules as to forum The rules as to forum can be discussed under the following two heads- a. Rules as to pecuniary jurisdiction: The rule about the pecuniary jurisdiction is that the "Every suit 37 shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Rules as to nature of the suit: Suits may be divided into three c1asses- i.
Suits in respect of immoveable property,- section 16 to 18 ii. Suit for compensation for wrong for torts to person or movable property,- Section 19, and iii. Suits of other kinds, - section- Sections 16 to 18 deal with suits relating to immoveable property.
Section 16 provides as Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for the recovery of immoveable property with or without rent or profits- a.
Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immoveable property held by S tu d yn a m a. KAM KUS 20 or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
In this section "property" means property situate in India. Section 17 provides as "Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immoveable property situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suits may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate: Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.
Section 18 provides as 1. Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immoveable property is situate, anyone of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction.
Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and 41 value of the suits to exercise jurisdiction. Section 19 provides as Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to moveable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said courts.
A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sueAeither in Calcutta or in Delhi. Suits for other kinds: Section 20 provides as S tu d yn a m a.
KAM KUS 21 Subject, to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- a. A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. A delivers the goods accordingly in Calcutta.
Amay sue B for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where the cause of action has arisen or in Delhi, where B carries on business. A may sue Band C at Banaras, where the cause of action arose,.
He may also sue them at Calcutta, where B resides, or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these case, if the non-resident defendant objects, the suit can not proceed without the leave of the Court. Objections to Jurisdiction - Section 21 45 Objections as to territorial Place of suing jurisdiction: Such objection was taken in the Court of first instance.
KAM KUS 22 1 such objection was taken in the Court of first instance, 2 at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, 3 and unless there has been a consequent failure of Justice. It is well settled principle of law that neither consent nor waiver nor acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a Court otherwise incompetent a try a suit.
An objection as to local jurisdiction of a Court can be waived and this principle has been given a statutory 50 recognition in Section 21 of the Code of Civil procedure and provides that the defect as to the place of suing under 15 to 20 may be waived. Objections as to jurisdiction both territorial, pecuniary and technical are not open to consideration by an 51 Appellate Court unless there has been prejudice on merits and the section does not preclude objections as to the place of suing being taken in the Appellate Court or Revisional Court, if the trial Court has not decided the suit on merits.
The mere lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is considered as merely technical and it can be waived in the sense that if objection with regards to them is not taken at the earliest opportunity, at any stage, at or before the settlement of issues, the same cannot be allowed to be raised at a later stage unless it is 52 established that there is a consequent failure of Justice.
It is a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that invalidity could be set up wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon even at the stage of execution. The defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such defect cannot be cured even by 53 consent of parties.
Section 21 is an exception and defect as to place of suing, that is to say, the local venue for suits cognizable by Courts under the Code may be waived under this section. Such waiver is limited to objections in the 54 Appellate or Revisional Courts. No suit shall lie challenging the S tu d yn a m a. KAM KUS 23 validity of a decree passed in a former suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, on any ground based on an objection as to the place of suing.
The expression "former suit" means a suit which has been decided prior to the decision in the suit in which the validity of the decree is questioned, whether or not the previously decided suit was instituted prior to the suit in which the validity of such decree is questioned.
Define decree. What are its essentials? Explain the differences between preliminary and final decree. Is section 11 C. Explain fully the principles of constructive Res-judicata. What is stay of suit? Give difference between Res-judicata and Res-Sub-judice? What is foreign judgement? Are the foreign judgments conclusive? Are they binding on the parties in India? What are the principles and provisions of C. What do you understand by suit of civil nature?
Explain the following: Distinguish between the following: Section 2 12 2. Lucy V. Mahant narayan Dasjee V. Raja Soap Factory v S. Chief Justice,A. Vasudev Modi Vs R. RehmanAI R , S. Ibid' 8. Lord Hobhouse Mathai Vs Varkey VarkeyA. Bhatia Coop.
Housing Society V D. Ubi jus ibi remidium Oxford English Dictionary Metropolitan V M. Section 9 PremierAutomobiles V K. Explanation to Section 10 Spencer Bower Das Gupta, J.
Supra Note 4 From C. Tackwani Sayyadhan v. Patil v Y. Daryao Singh v State of U. AIR SC See also State of U. Gautam Sarwar v. Venkata Lakshmi 3 SCC. Article , LimitationAct, 7. Section 15 Section' 16 Section 17 Section 18 1 Section 18 2 Section 19 Section 20 Section 21 1 Section 21 2 Supra Note 2 Section 21 3 AIR Kant.
Krishnappa M. Jagdish Vs Smt. Behrin Petroleum Co. Joinder of Plaintiff Rule 1 Joinder of Parties: Joinder of Defendant Rule 3 The question of joinder of parties arises only when' an act is done by two or more persons Joinder of defendants or it affects two or more persons Ooinder of plaintiffs 1.
Joinder of Plaintiffs: Rule 1: All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where- a any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and b if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.
Joinder of Defendants: Rule 3: All persons maybe joined in one suit as defendants where- 1 any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and 2 if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.
AnAltercation takes place between Pon the one hand and Q and R on the other. P assaults Q and R simultaneously. Q and R may join as plaintiffs in one suit for damages against P for that tortorious act. Q and R simultaneously assault P. P may join Q and R as defendants in one suit for damages for that tortorious act. The plaintiff may, at his option, join as parties to the same suit S tu d yn a m a.
KAM KUS 27 all or any of the persons severally, or jointly and severally, liable on anyone contract, including parties to bills of exchange, hundis and promissory notes. Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he is entitled to obtain redress, he may join two or more defendants in order that the question as to which of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined as between all arties.
Where it appears to the Court that any joinder of plaintiffs or defendants may embarrass delay the trial of the suit, the Court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interest of justice. Judgment for or against one or more of joint parties: The Court may give judgment for one or more the 4 plaintiffs as may be found to entitle to relief or as against one or more of the defendants as may found to be 5 liable.
Necessary and Proper Parties: A necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable to the constitution of the suit, against whom the relief is sought and without whom no effective order can be made. In the absence of a necessary party no decree can be passed, while a proper party is one in hose absence an effective order can be made, but whose presence is required for a complete and al decision on the question involved in the proceeding. In the absence of a proper party a decree can passed so far as it relates to the parties to the suit.
In a petition for compensation in a road accident case, the claimant s may join three parties i. Non joinder means not joining proper or necessary parties to the suits, while mis-joinder is a state of joining two or more persons whether necessary or proper arties as plaintiffs or defendants on one suit in contravention of rules 1 and rule 3 respectively. As a general rule, a suit shall not be dismissed only on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties, except in a case of non-joinder of a necessary party.
Objections as to non joinder or misjoinder of parties: As has been provided in Rule 13 of Order I, all objections on the grounds of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and, in all cases in which issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived.
Order I, Rule 10 deals with the cases of stricking out, addition or substitution of parties. In a case where a suit has been instituted in the name of wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, e court may at any stage of the suit, on the satisfaction of the following: KAM KUS 28 i that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and ii that it is necessary for the determination of the real matters in disputed, order any other person to be added or substituted as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court may think just.
Court may strike out or add parties: The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order at the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff.
No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent, i. On the addition of a defendant, the plaint shall unless the Court otherwise directs be amended and amended copies of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and if required, on the original 10 defendant.
All proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun 11 only on the service of the summons. Representative Suit: Order I, Rule 8 Introduction: Order VIII, Rule 1 is an exception to the general rule that all persons interested in a suit ought to be joined as parties to it, in order to finally adjudicate all the matters involved therein and to avoid the fresh litigations over the same matters.
The rule is an enabling provision and neither compels anyone to represent many if, by himself, he has a right to suit nor vest a right of suit in a person and if he, by himself, has no right to sue, he cannot proceed to sue on behalf of others by invoking the aid of Order 1 Rule 8 C.
Representative Suit may be defined as under "A representative suit is a suit filed by or against one or more persons on behalf of themselves and others having the same interest in the suit. One or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested; b. Order 23, Rule 1 3 , and no agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under Rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff's expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub-rule 2.
For the purpose of determining whether the persons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons have the same cause of action as the" persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued or defend the suit, as the case may be.
Conditions to Apply Rule 8: The Apex Court has decided in T. Housing Board v. Rule 8 2 1 Numerous persons: The word" numerous" means a group of persons. It is not necessary that the number of persons should be capable of being ascertained. But it is necessary that the body of persons represented by the plaintiffs or the defendants must be sufficiently definite so as to enable the Court to recognize as participants in the suit.
The persons on whose behalf the suit is instituted must have the same interest which is common to all of them or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get redressed.
For the purpose of this condition the above explanation to Rule 1 is relevant. The fact about the representative nature of the suit must be stated in the body of the S tu d yn a m a. In a representative suit, even on the death of the person appointed to conduct such suit, such suit will not abate and other person or persons interested in the suits may proceed with the suit or may apply to be added as plaintiff.
Order II of the code deals with the provisions relating to the framing of suits and the rules regarding causes of action. A cause of Action means every fact which it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish to support his claim in obtaining judgment in his favour.
Order II, Rule 1 explains that every suit shall be framed so as to afford ground for the final decision upon the subject in disputes and to prevent further litigation concerning them. Amendment in section 35 of Act V of Amendment in section A of Act V of Substitution of section A of Act V of Amendment in section 91 of Act V of Amendment in section 92 of Act V of Substitution of section 95 of Act V of Amendment in section 97 of Act V of Substitution of section of Act V of Amendment in section of Act V of An Act further to amend the Code of Civil Procedure, It is necessary further to amend the Code of Civil Procedure, V of for purposes of updating certain provisions of the Code.
Be it enacted by Provincial Assembly of the Punjab as follows: Judgment and decree.