Order II Rule 2 CPC Bar Won't Apply When Reliefs In Second Suit Are Based On A Cause Of Action Different From First Suit : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (Jan. 15) ruled that a subsequent suit filed on a different cause of action would not be subject to the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). The Court justified the filing of a subsequent suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, following the institution of an earlier suit seeking a permanent injunction, noting that both suits were based on distinct causes of action.Order II Rule 2 CPC mandates that a plaintiff include the whole claim he is entitled to, arising from the same cause of action, in a single suit. The rule seeks to prevent the splitting of claims and multiplicity of suits based on the same cause of action. However, the Court said that the Rule would not be applicable when the subsequent suit was filed on a different cause of action than that of the cause of action for the first suit. The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the case where an agreement to sell was entered between Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff-Buyer) and Respondent No.2 (Defendant-Seller) in respect of the immovable property. Disputes arose when Respondent No. 2 executed another sale deed for the same property in favor of the appellant in 2008. Respondent No. 1 initially filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and subsequently filed a second suit for specific performance of the sale agreement and to declare the subsequent sale deed null and void. Although he was aware during the first suit that Respondent No. 2 had executed another sale deed for the same property in favor of the appellant, he was unable to include the reliefs for specific performance of the sale agreement and possession due to a State Government order restricting the registration of sale deeds in Thyagavalli village, where the suit property is located.The trial court invoked Order II Rule 2 of the CPC and declined to decree Respondent No. 1's suit for specific performance of the sale agreement. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had failed to include all claims and reliefs in the earlier suit, despite being aware that Respondent No. 2 had executed another sale deed for the same property prior to the filing of the first suit, which sought a permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the trial court's decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Madras High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal. Following this, the appellant (subsequent buyer) preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala observed that though filing a subsequent suit, after the institution of the first suit, on the same cause of action is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, the filing of a second suit on distinct cause of action is not barred. “the true import of the bar under Order II Rule 2 must be that it operates to preclude a plaintiff from instituting a second suit, on the same cause of action, for a claim, any portion of a claim, or reliefs, which the plaintiff was entitled to avail at the time of filing of the first suit.”, the court said. The Court ruled that Respondent No. 1 had legitimate grounds for not pursuing the reliefs of specific performance of the agreement to sell and recovery of possession of the suit property in the initial suit for a permanent injunction. It observed that a government order prohibiting the registration of sale deeds had precluded Respondent No. 1 from seeking the reliefs later claimed in the subsequent suit within the earlier proceedings. “There may arise a situation where the plaintiff may be entitled to a relief but such a relief was not available at a certain point in time. In other words, obtaining such a relief was impossible due to the circumstances which existed during the institution of the first suit. It is our opinion that, in such scenarios, Courts must give such an interpretation to the principles under Order II Rule 2 that is not bogged down by mere technicalities.”, the Court observed. “In our opinion, the reliefs in the subsequent suit are in fact founded on a cause of action which is distinct from that which is the foundation of the former suit. The facts which are necessary to be proved and the evidence to support the claims in the second suit are also different from that of the first suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent no. 1 could have prayed for the reliefs claimed in the subsequent suit at an earlier stage.”, the Court added. In this regard, the Court approved the decisions of the Rajasthan and Allahabad High Courts in Ramjilal v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan reported in AIR 1964 Raj 114 and National Security Assurance Company Ltd. v. S.N. Jaggi reported in AIR 1971 All 421, respectively. “These decisions of the Rajasthan and Allahabad High Courts respectively, have rightly taken the view that when it is not possible for the plaintiff to obtain a particular relief in the first instance but such relief becomes available to him on ...

Order II Rule 2 CPC Bar Won't Apply When Reliefs In Second Suit Are Based On A Cause Of Action Different From First Suit : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags