PRABHULAL Vs. LALARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against an order of remand made by the Additional District Judge, Morena.

(2.) IN short the facts are that the plaintiff brought a suit in respect of certain dealings of the defendant recorded in his Khata. The defendant inter alia objected that in so far as the plaintiff had filed a suit earlier regarding some other items of the Khata, this suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court upheld this contention and dismissed the suit. on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Morena, held that there was no splitting of the claim and remanded the case to the trial Court for further proceedings.

(3.) THE learned counsel, for the appellant relying upon illustration given under Order 2 Rule 2, contends that the present suit is. barred. But this argument overlooks the fact that according to the Explanation to Order 2 Rule 2, if successive claims arise out of the same obligation, they are deemed to constitute one cause of action. But in the present case, obligation in respect of each item of the Khata is a separate entity. They are not successive claims arising out of one obligation. It has been observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council, Saminathan Chetty v. Palaniappa Chetty, 41 Ind App 142, that the rule (contained in Order 2 Rule 2) is directed to securing the exhaustion of the relief in respect of a cause of action and not to the inclusion in one and the same action of different causes of action, even though they arise from the same transaction. This view appears to have been followed by the Nagpur High Court in Sheoshankar Dayal v. Sheoshankar Sahai, AIR 1947 Nag 176,