Report No. 54
Frame of The Suit
2.1. Order 2 deals with the frame of the suit; and the dominant rule here is that as far as practicable, every suit shall be so framed as to afford ground for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. With this end in view, the Code provides that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action, and similarly, he must claim all the reliefs which he is entitled to, in respect of the same cause of action.
2.2. As has been observed:1
"Were the rule is otherwise, a man might be sued, repeatedly in respect of the same matter, and conflicting judgments might be pronounced regarding separate portions of the same property, included in the same cause of action.
And as the value of the property claimed by the plaint determines the class of judges by which a suit is cognizable and the remedies of the parties in an appeal, a suit might be split up, so that each branch of it should be decided by a judge of a lower class than that by which, with reference to the value of the whole property in litigation, it ought to be decided, and the right of the parties to appeal would be unfairly limited".
1. W. Macpherson New Civil Procedure for British India, (1871), p. 54, citing 2 Suth 148.
2.3. The Code also encourages the plaintiff to unite, in the same suit, several causes of action against the same defendant jointly,-the object here again also being to avoid numerous proceedings. Of course, where there are several defendants or plaintiffs, and several causes of action, and one or more of the plaintiffs or defendants are not interested in one or more of the causes of action, the nice question of "multifariousness" arises. The Code expressly provides that objections on the grounds of mis-joinder of causes of action must be taken at the earliest possible stage.
We do not recommend any changes in this Order. Order 2, rule 2 and Execution Proceedings
2.4. Since the provisions of Order 2, rule 2 do not apply to execution proceedings, it has been held1 that an application to enforce one relief will not be a bar to a subsequent application to enforce the other relief, though both the reliefs were awarded by one and the same decree.2 We do not think that a specific provision is necessary in this respect.
1. Radha Kishan v. Radha Parshad, 1891 LLR 18 Cal 515.