IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Case No.

WRIT JURISDICTION

UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

INDRAYANI N.G.O …PETITIONER

VS.

STATE OF GUJRANA …RESPONDENTS

Sharad S. Raut
Council for Defendant
(LLB 3rd Year 2023-2024)

WRITTEN PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. /204 UPON SUBMISSION TO THE

HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIYANA
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr.No. Description Page. No.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1
2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9
7 PRAYER 11
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Cr. Criminal

Edn. Edition

Govt. Government

HMA Hindu Marriage Act

Hon‟ble Honourable

i.e. That is

No. Number

PC Privy Council

SC Schedule Caste

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

u/s Under Section

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

www World Wide Web

1
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. Table of Cases

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

1. STATUTES

i. The Constitution Of India

ii. Criminal Procedure Code
iii. Indian Penal Code

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT 2

2. Cases Refereed

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT 3

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT 4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT 5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 and Rules 2017

An Act to unify, consolidate and amend the law relating to the control of rent and repairs of certain
premises and of eviction and for encouraging the construction of new houses by assuring a fair
return on the investment by landlords and to provide for the matters connected with the purposes
aforesaid.

Civil Procedure Code 1908 and order to rule to of CPC.

Order 2 Rule 2 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads:
2. Suit to include the whole claim:
Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of
the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit
within the jurisdiction of any Court.

Relinquishment of part of claim:

Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim
he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

Omission to sue for one of several reliefs:

A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or
any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he
shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.

Explanation:

For the purposes of this rule an obligation and collateral security for its performance and
successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but
one cause of action.

The provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 indicate that if a plaintiff is entitled to several reliefs against the
defendant in respect of the same cause of action, he cannot split up the claim so as to omit one part
of the claim and sue for the other. If the cause of action is the same, the plaintiff has to place all his
claims before the Court in one suit, as Order 2 Rule 2 is based on the cardinal principle that the
defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause. One of the objects of Order 2 Rule 2 is
also to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT 6

Section 115 of civil procedure court 1098

Section 115 of CPC. Revision

The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court
subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court
appears:
 to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
 to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
 to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the
High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.

Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any
order deciding an issue, during a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been
made in favor of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other
proceedings.

The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an
appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.
A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where
such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.

Explanation:

In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any
order deciding an issue during a suit or other proceeding.

Article 131 of the Schedule of Limitation Act provides a limitation period of 90 days for filing the
revision under the Code of Civil Procedure from the date of decree or order or sentence sought to
be revised. Thus, the limitation period prescribed for filing the revision against the impugned order
is 90 days. The application for revision must be filed with the High Court within the limitation
period."

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT 6

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Statement of Facts:
Pratik Bajaj owns an ancestral house in Pune. In October 2000 he moved to Ranchi to establish his
clothing business. Shifting his base from Pune to Ranchi, made him to give his ancestral house on
rent. He gave his double storied ancestral house at Pune on rent to Raja Ram at the rate of Rs. 500
per month.

In January 2012 Prateek realized that the amount of rent was not as per current market price and
therefore he asked Raja Ram to enhance the rent from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000. But despite his request
Rajaram paid little heed, he denied paying the increased amount. After repeated requests he did not
agree to pay any extra money for rent. The denial of the payment of increased rent by Raja Ram
caused Prateek to file one case at court of small causes at Pune in July 2012 relating to rate of rent
which he claimed to be Rs. 1000 per month instead of Rs. 500.

In September 2015 the small causes court decided that rate of rent would remain Rs. 500 per
month. After that Raja Ram stopped paying any rent to Pratik. Being frustrated with the decision of
the court, Pratik filed another suit in July 2015 as per advice of his friends at Pune Civil Judge
Junior Division for ejectment suit against Raja Ram with due rent from September 2012 at the rate
of Rs. 1000 per month. In August 2015 a civil judge passed judgment the in favor of Pratik and
passed an order to Raja Ram to pay the due amount with cost. Raja Ram filed one revision petition
before the Mumbai High Court about validity of order of Pune court.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT 7

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Statement of Issues

1. Whether the present suit is maintainable under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908?

2. Whether the appellant can claim bar on the institution of a suit by respondent under Order 2,
Rule 2 of CPC or not?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the present suit is maintainable under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908?

Revision: Section 115 of the Code deals with the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. It
provides that the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any
court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate
court appears.
to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. or
to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that the High Court shall not under this section vary or reverse any order made, or any
order deciding an issue, during a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been
made in favor of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other
proceeding.

The High Court shall not, under Section 115, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an
appeal lies either to the High Court or to any court subordinate thereto. A revision shall not operate
as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is
stayed by the High Court under Section 115 (3).

Explanation: In Section 115, the expression any case which has been decided includes any order
made or any order deciding an issue, during suit or other proceeding.

2. Whether the appellant can claim bar on the institution of a suit by respondent under Order 2,
Rule 2 of CPC or not?

Order II rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars splitting of reliefs, claimed in suits, on the same
cause of action. The object is two-fold. First, defendants should not be vexed twice for the same
cause of action (Inacio Martins v. Narayan Hari Naik, AIR 1993 SC 1756; 1993-3 SCC 123; and
the second, prevent multiplicity of suits (State Bank of India v. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR
2014 SC 731; R. Salvi v. Satish Shankar Gupte, AIR 2004 Bom 455).

“Order II rule 2: Suits to include the whole claim:

(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect
of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the
suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

(2) Relinquishment of part of claim. - Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally
relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so
omitted or relinquished.

(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs. - A person entitled to more than one relief in respect
of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the
leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its
performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively
to constitute but one cause of action.”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

 PRAYER

Therefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Defendant humbly pray before this Hon’ble
Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The revision petition may please be dismissed.

2. The judgement passed by the Pune civil judge may please be upheld.

Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and
good conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships the Defendant shall as
duty bound ever pray.

Sd/-

Sharad S. Raut
Counsels for the Defendant

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT