Based on the concept of “order of joining the parties”, under Order I, Rule 1 of CPC under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 of India, whether two more people can appear and approach a single court in a single suit. Legal provisions: The 'Order I, Rule 1 CPC, mentions that: Any number of individuals can beRead more
Based on the concept of “order of joining the parties”, under Order I, Rule 1 of CPC under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 of India, whether two more people can appear and approach a single court in a single suit.
Legal provisions:
The ‘Order I, Rule 1 CPC, mentions that: Any number of individuals can be brought together as claimants in a single action where —
or (a) any right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions; and
It might do so (b)-(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.
Application to the Case
1. Common Right to Relief:
Both Universities have the same complaint against A because when A employed the title “The Oxford and Cambridge Publications” people are led to assume that the books are published by the said Universities. This confers on both plaintiffs a ‘common right to relief’ in preventing A from employing the misleading title.
2. Same Act or Transaction:
Even a single transaction involved in the act of publication of books under the misleading title is abusive of th goodwill and reputation of both the Universities.These are common issues which if the Universities had filed separate suits they would have been raised as follows: more people can join and move before a single court in a singular lawsuit.
Legal provisions:
The ‘Order I, Rule 1 CPC, mentions that: “All persons may be joined as plaintiffs in one suit where —
(a) any right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions; and
(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.”
Application to the Case
1. Common Right to Relief:
The two Universities have a common grievance against A, because A’s use of the title “The Oxford and Cambridge Publications” gives rise to the belief that the books are published by either or both institutions. This gives both plaintiffs a ‘common right to relief’ in restraining A from using the misleading title.
2. Same Act or Transaction:
The act of publication of books under the misleading title itself is a ‘single transaction’ that infringes goodwill and reputation of both the Universities.
3. Common Questions of Law and Fact: If separate suits were filed by the Universities, they would have common issues such as: Whether A’s use of the title is deceptive.
– Whether it violates the rights of the Universities.
The area affected by the calamity as well as the degree or intensity of the identified loss.
Joining an action has the advantage of avoiding the parallel trials which are time consuming and therefore saver judicial resources.
Conclusion
Oxford and Cambridge Universities can join in filing the suit under the CPC because their rights to relief arise out of the same transaction and if separate actions were filed, there would be common question of law and fact. Pleading as plaintiffs is not a wrong approach to the procedures laid down in the present case.
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with two important doctrine "Res Judicata" and "Res Sub Judice". The key differences between the two are: Meaning: Sec 11 CPC deals with the doctrine of Res Judicata and states that a matter that has already been decided by a competent court it can't be re-opened iRead more
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with two important doctrine “Res Judicata” and “Res Sub Judice”. The key differences between the two are:
Meaning:
Sec 11 CPC deals with the doctrine of Res Judicata and states that a matter that has already been decided by a competent court it can’t be re-opened in subsequent litigation.
Sec 10 CPC deals with Res Sub judice and it prevents the courts from taking up any matter which is still pending before subsequent court.
Purpose
The main purpose of Res Judicata is to protect individuals from being harassed by multiplicity of suits.
The purpose behind doctrine of Res sub Judice is to ensure there is conflicting or multiple judgements and matter to be decided by only one competent court.
Stage Of Litigation
Res Judicata is applicable after the final Judgement has been pronounced whereas Res Sub judice is applicable when the suit is pending.
Effect
Res Judicate bars further litigation on the decided issue on the other hand Res Sub judice stays the trial of the pending suit.
See less