The omission of a portion of a claim in a suit against one of several promisors is no bar to a subse...........

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) 1908 Attachment and Sale of property

The omission of a portion of a claim in a suit against one of several promisors is no bar to a subsequent suit against another promisor in respect of the portion so omitted. A lets a house to B and C at a yearly rent of Rs 1,200. The rent for the whole of the years 1905, 1906 and 1907 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 1908 for the rent due for 1907.

A cannot afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1906

A can afterwards sue C for the rent due for 1905 or 1906

Both (A) and (B)

None of these

छोटे Courses बड़े Results

Master Attachment and Sale of property

Prepare through Micro-courses

Try Now

Explanation:

Let’s break it down:

- If A sues B for only the 1907 rent, he can't turn around and sue B again for unpaid rent from 1905 or 1906, because he has to claim his entire demand against that party in one go. So, Option 1: A cannot afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1906.

- But—and it’s a big but—he *can* go after C for the rent of 1905 or 1906 that wasn’t claimed from B. That's what the law intends: not stopping A from recovering the remaining dues from a separate promisor. So, Option 2: A can afterwards sue C for the rent due for 1905 or 1906.

- That means Option 3: Both (A) and (B) is correct.

- Option 4: None of these obviously isn’t right.

So, both Options 1 and 2 are correct—A is blocked from a second suit against B for old rent, but not from going after C. That’s exactly what the principle is about.