A publishes a series of books under the title ― The Oxford and Cambridge Publications ― to induce the belief that the books are publications of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities or either of them. The two Universities join as ...
These two legal doctrines fall under civil procedure but, they do not have the same roles nor do they occur in similar contexts. RES JUDICATA SECTION 11 of CPC. Meaning: What can be translated to English as “A matter already judged”. Purpose: This ensures that new trials are not occasioned that hadRead more
These two legal doctrines fall under civil procedure but, they do not have the same roles nor do they occur in similar contexts.
RES JUDICATA SECTION 11 of CPC.
Meaning: What can be translated to English as “A matter already judged”.
Purpose: This ensures that new trials are not occasioned that had already been determined by a competent court.
Application: Used where there is a previous decision of the superior court on the same issueThe same parties or their representativesA competent court of law.
Effect: Stops future legal actions on an issue between two parties until the initial proceeding has been resolved.
*RES SUBJUDICE SECTION 10 OF CPC*
Meaning: It means a case under the consideration of the court of law or a matter that is before the court.
Purpose: It serves as protection against the initiation of similar actions in different courts concerning the same matter
Application: Used when a case is under consideration in another chamberWhich is still pending in a competent court having jurisdiction
Effect: Demands a stay of the proceedings in the subsequent suit until the first suit has been resolved.
Timing: While Res Judicata takes place after the last judgment, Res Subjudice occurs during the conduct of a case.
Outcome: Res Judicata prevents subsequent actions all together while Res Subjudice only freezes them for the time being.
Finality: Res Judicata entails a finality while Res Subjudice on the other hand pertains to cases still in progress. Both are meant to avoid the risk of different outcomes, save time and resources, and yet they work at different steps in the legal system.
See less
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
See lessOxford 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.