The learned counsel for the defendant in all fairness cited the decision of the Hon'ble Himachala Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 2003 Himachal Pradesh 32 [Asha Sharma and others v. Amar Nath and others] and submitted that so far partition suits are concerned, the cause of action is held to be a continuing one.

The learned counsel for the defendant in all fairness cited the decision of the Hon'ble Himachala Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 2003 Himachal Pradesh 32 [Asha Sharma and others v. Amar Nath and others] and submitted that so far partition suits are concerned, the cause of action is held to be a continuing one.

12. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs cited the following decision:

(i) AIR 2003 Himachal Pradesh 32 [Asha Sharma and others v. Amar Nath and others]

As such, both the decisions would highlight and spotlight the fact that in a partition suit, the cause of action is a continuing one and hence Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC cannot be pressed into service. I would also like to agree with the said proposition, in view of the fact that the valuable right of a co-sharer should not be deprived because for one reason or other, the earlier suit might not have been able to be prosecuted further to its logical end.

Madras High Court

Balamani vs S.Balasundaram on 20 April, 2009

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

#partition

#order9rule9