send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
A sues B to recover one of two properties left by C, on the ground that he and not B is his heir. Thereafter, he applies to amend his plaint for including the second property left out in the plaint as originally field. B opposes the application for amendment which is disallowed by the court. A suit by A against B to recover the second property as heir of C would be barred under rule 2:
On the ground that A is to be taken to have omitted to sue for it in the first suit
He made an attempt to include it in that suit which was foiled by the opposition of B
Both (A) and (B)
None of these
Let’s break it down:
- Option 1: Says a new suit for the second property would be barred because A “omitted to sue” for it in the first suit. That’s the idea behind Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC—if you leave out part of your claim you should have included, you can’t file a new suit for it later.
- Option 2: Points out A did actually try to include the second property—he applied to amend the plaint but B opposed, and the court said no. So, A didn’t “omit” it voluntarily; he was stopped by the court’s order.
- Option 3: Says both of these explanations are correct.
- Option 4: Rejects the previous options.
Here's what this really means:
Order 2 Rule 2 bars a later suit only if you “intentionally omit” to sue for part of your claim. Here, A tried to bring in the second property but got shot down by the court after B objected. So he didn’t omit it by choice. Courts have held that if you sought amendment and were refused, the bar of Rule 2 doesn’t hit you. You can bring another suit for what you couldn’t include the first time.
So the right answer here is Option 2.
Option 2: He made an attempt to include it in that suit which was foiled by the opposition of B
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses