KAMILA AAMIR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE O — 2023 PLD 601 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

KAMILA AAMIR VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE O.II, R.2 & O.VII, R.11---Splitting of claim, bar against---Effect---Determination that a suit is barred under O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. can only translate into rejection of plaint under the provisions contained in O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. O.II, R.2---Whole claim---Inclusion in plaint---Object, purpose and scope---Plaintiff is prevented under O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. from splitting claims and reliefs which are based on same cause of action with the aim that a single cause should not be segregated among several suits---Objective is to safeguard against defendant being vexed twice in respect of same cause of action underpinning the claim---In case of omission to sue or intentional relinquishment of a claim, O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. places a bar on bringing subsequent action in regard thereto---Plaintiff is compelled under O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. to sue for all reliefs arising from same cause of action---In case of omission of plaintiff to do so, he is barred from such relief in a subsequent suit except where he took leave from Court. O. II, R.2---Cause of action---Scope---Cause of action comprises material facts constituting right and its infringement which entitles a person to sue the wrongdoer or anyone liable for it---Cause of action must include a set of primary or operative facts that represent a legally recognized wrong that creates right to sue which gives rise to a claim enforceable in court---Each cause of action consists of points the plaintiff must prove, and all such elements must be satisfied before Court can take action---Such broad categorization of O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. is in accord with the scheme of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. O. II, R.2---Terms "claim" and "cause of action"---Distinction---Claim must be distinguished from relief which relates to form of remedy a person seeks from Court---Relief or remedy is the means through which cause of action is effectuated and the wrong is redressed. O. II, R. 2 & O. VII, R.11---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 39, 42 & 54---Rejecting of plaint---Omission of claim---Splitting of claim, bar against---Petitioners/plaintiffs filed two suits; in the first one they claimed shares of their mothers in the estate of deceased owner and had challenged Registered Deed of Family Settlement and Surrender Deed through which suit properties were distributed amongst legal representatives of deceased owner---While the first suit was pending, petitioners/plaintiffs instituted the second suit for declaration, possession and cancellation of documents---Respondents/defendant sought rejection of second suit under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. which application was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction allowed the same and rejected the plaint---Validity---Principle embodied in O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. directs that plaintiff has no right to maintain two separate actions involving same subject matter in same court and against same defendant---Provision of O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. puts bar on a party from bringing claims arising from same set of facts in successive suits---Party cannot split up the claim and bring only a portion thereof before court on which relief is sought and leave the rest to be prosecuted in a subsequent suit---Petitioners/plaintiffs violated mandatory rule and thus the bar on the second suit by terms of O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. was applicable to the present case---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Lower appellate Court which rightly held that second suit instituted by petitioners/plaintiffs was hit by bar contained in O. II, R. 2, C.P.C.---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. O. II, R. 2---Whole claim, including of---Splitting of claim, bar against---Bar contained in O. II, R. 2, C.P.C., is against splitting claim in respect of cause of action and not the cause of action itself---Cause of action is simply technical and legal name representing the facts which give rise to a claim enforceable in Court---Term claim is generally used interchangeably with cause of action, its use within the confines of O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. refers to a right which would be enforceable if decreed by Court---Cause of action signifies and provides pivotal ingredients for establishing basis for legal claim and is also relevant for other purposes such as computation of limitation period, determination of proper forum for filing of claim (jurisdiction) and locus standi etc.---Cause of action broadly speaking is the factual matrix forming basis of claim and also identifies legal nature of those claims, which is the technical meaning of a cause of action. S.11 & O.II, R.2---Principle of res judicata and bar against splitting of claim---Scope and distinction---Principle of res judicata states that where there is a judgment inter parties a fresh suit on the same subject matter is barred---Principle contained in O. II, R. 2, C.P.C., by contrast simply bars second suit in case plaintiff omitted or relinquished any claim/relief that he could seek in the first suit---Where Civil Procedure Code, 1908, required, as in S. 11, C.P.C., it expressly stated its intention of having a final decision in prior proceedings---There is a marked difference between the two principles---Rule of claim/relief splitting in its exposition and despite its subtleties does not admit of a construction requiring mandatorily a final decision on merits in the first suit.

KAMILA AAMIR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE O — 2023 PLD 601 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD