Order II Rule 2 CPC Doesn't Mean Different Causes Of Action From Same Transaction Must Be Included In Single Suit : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that while Order II Rule 2 of the CPC mandates including the entire claim arising from the same cause of action in one suit, it should not be misconstrued to require combining all different causes of action stemming from the same transaction into a single suit. “The mandate of Order II Rule 2 is the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in one suit. It must not be misunderstood to mean that all the different causes of action arising from the same transaction must be included in a single suit.”, the Court said. In other words, a number of causes of action may arise out of the same transaction and it is not the mandate of Order II Rule 2 that they should all be included in one suit. On the other hand, what is required is that every suit shall include the “whole of the claim” arising out of “one and the same cause of action”, the court added.The Court further stated that a defendant objecting to a subsequent suit must demonstrate that it was based on the same cause of action and that the plaintiff could have sought the reliefs in the first suit without any impossibility.The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan summarized the principle governing the filing of the subsequent suit, and bar operating under Order II Rule 2 CPC in the following points:"i. The object of Order II Rule 2 is to prevent the multiplicity of suits and the provision is founded on the principle that a person shall not be vexed twice for one and the same cause. ii. The mandate of Order II Rule 2 is the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in one suit. It must not be misunderstood to mean that all the different causes of action arising from the same transaction must be included in a single suit. iii. Several definitions have been given to the phrase “cause of action” and it can safely be said to mean – “every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court”. Such a cause of action has no relation whatsoever to the defence that may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief which is prayed for by the plaintiff but refers to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. iv. Similarly, several tests have been laid out to determine the applicability of Order II Rule 2 to a suit. While it is acknowledged that the same heavily depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, it can be said that a correct and reliable test is to determine whether the claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation of the former suit. Additionally, if the evidence required to support the claims is different, then the causes of action can also be considered to be different. Furthermore, it is necessary for the causes of action in the two suits to be identical in substance and not merely technically identical. v. The defendant who takes shelter under the bar imposed by Order II Rule 2(3) must establish that (a) the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (b) in respect of that cause of action, the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; and (c) being thus entitled to more than one relief, the plaintiff, without any leave obtained from the Court, omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. vi. The defendant must also have produced the earlier plaint in evidence in order to establish that there is an identity in the causes of action between both the suits and that there was a deliberate relinquishment of a larger relief on the part of the plaintiff. vii. Since the plea is a technical bar, it has to be established satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of inferential reasoning."BackgroundThe Court addressed a case involving an agreement to sell between Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff-Buyer) and Respondent No. 2 (Defendant-Seller) for immovable property. Disputes arose when Respondent No. 2 executed another sale deed in favor of the appellant in 2008.Respondent No. 1 initially filed a suit for a permanent injunction and later filed a second suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement and nullification of the subsequent sale deed. Due to a government order banning the registration of sale deeds in Thyagavalli village, Respondent No. 1 could not seek these reliefs in the first suit. The trial court dismissed the second suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC, citing the plaintiff's failure to include all claims in the initial suit. However, the Madras High Court overturned this decision, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court by the appellant.Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala observed that though filing a subsequent suit, after the ...

Order II Rule 2 CPC Doesn't Mean Different Causes Of Action From Same Transaction Must Be Included In Single Suit : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Order II Rule 2 CPC Doesn't Mean Different Causes Of Action From Same Transaction Must Be Included In Single Suit : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers