Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,R.2,O.II,R.2

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,R.2,O.II,R.2

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 3

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VII, R.2 & O.II, R.2---Suit for rendition of accounts---Plaintiff claimed to be the owner to the extent of 27/48 share, while defendants to the extent of 21/48 shares out of total joint property---Plaintiff proceeded abroad in the year 1979 and remained there till 1991, for about 12 years---Disputed property consisted of 7 shops remained in possession of defendant who received rent of said shops for about 12 years---Plaintiff on his return in 1991 demanded his share of rent of said shops, but defendant refused---Maintainability of suit filed by the plaintiff was objected to on grounds of limitation and under O.II, R.2, C.P.C., contending that plaintiff was obliged to file one suit for partition and rendition of accounts---Validity---Cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff when his share was refused by the defendant in 1991 and not from the year 1979, when the plaintiff proceeded abroad---Suit in circumstances was fully within time and was not barred by limitation---Order II, R.2, C.P.C. had restricted filing different suits for various reliefs coming out of one cause of action; situation in the present case was different---Partition of the property, was one cause of action when someone would feel aggrieved about the same, while rendition of accounts regarding mesne profits/rendition of accounts of the same provided another cause of action to an aggrieved party---Defendants were enjoying the possession of the suit shops and were in receipt of the mesne profits since 1979---Whenever the right was refused, the present cause of action was created; and in the present case there was recurring cause of action as the defendants were still denying the share of the plaintiff in the rent of the shops---Partition of the property and mesne profits/rendition of accounts were different causes of action and could be filed separately and O.II, R.2, C.P.C. would not bar the same in any manner---Concurrent findings of law and facts existed against the defendants, who had failed to repel the assertions of the plaintiff---In absence of any illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence, impugned s and decrees, were maintained.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492