Maxim
Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference
Nemo lis vexavi
Nemo lis vexavi legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
1999 PLD 340 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Judicial Precedent
Nemo lis vexaviO. II, R.2Maxim "nemo lis vexavi" (no one was twice vexed for the same cause of action)"Cause of action"Concept and meaningCause of action is not susceptible of a definition which is either unchanging or all inclusiveMeaning of cause of action depends, in large measure, on the context in which expression is employed
Investiture of a legal right arises from and depends upon operative facts and circumstances which, under the law, create the right, preserve it, and such creative facts and circumstances constitute a "cause of action".
How to cite this page:
"Nemo lis vexavi", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/16669
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Nemo lis vexavi"
PLD
1999
N/A
P L D 1999 Lahore 340
CHIRAGH — Petitioner Versus ABDUL and others — Respondents
Court: High Court
SCMR
1987
Civil Appeal No, 122 of 1975, decided on 2nd November, 1986.
1987 S C M R 527
AZIZ AHMAD and others‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. HAJRAN BIBI and another‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑O. IX, Rr. 8 & 9 and O.II, R. 2(2)‑‑Maxim: Nemo debet lis vexavi (no one was to be twice vexed for the same cause of action)‑‑Dismissal of suit for non‑appearance of plaintiff‑‑Bar of fresh suit‑‑Dispute over inheritance of immovable property‑‑Suit of appellants (brothers and sisters) filed at for a declaration that respondent was not the son of their deceased brother and as ‑ such he was not the latter's heir and consequently, they were entitled to 3/4th share in property left by their brother dismissed in default under R. 8, O.IX C.P.C.‑‑Second suit filed at F for similar declaration and on same cause of action barred by R. 9, O.IX, C.P.C.‑‑Contention that before suit at B was dismissed the suit at F had already been instituted and, therefore, R.9 of O.IX, C.P.C. was not in terms applicable as the said rule only prevented a plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit but had no effect on a suit which had already been filed‑‑Such contention in so far as the construction of R.9, O. IX, C.P.C. was concerned, held, was correct but that did not mean that second suit was not barred and could be tried on merit‑‑Mere fact that in first suit appellants did not seek relief in respect of property situate in F would not make the cause of action in the second suit a different one‑‑Failure to seek any relief in respect of property situate in F in the suit filed at B, would, in fact, mean that appellants had given up their claim to the said property and the second suit would be hit by the bar contained in R, 2(2) of O.II, C.P.C.‑‑Maxim