Subsequent Suit For Rent Arrears Maintainable After Suit For Possession; Both Different Causes Of Action: Supreme Court

Observing that the suit for recovery of possession is different from the suit for arrears of rent and damages, the Supreme Court held that there's no bar to file a separate suit for arrears of rent and damages after a suit for possession. The Court said a second suit filed on a different cause of action would not be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 2 Rule 2 prevents the fragmentation of claims into multiple lawsuits. It mandates that a plaintiff must include their entire claim related to a specific cause of action in one lawsuit. If the plaintiff intentionally or unintentionally omits a part of the claim, they cannot file a separate suit without the court's permission. In the present case, the plaintiff/respondent filed two suits i.e., one for the possession of the property and another for receiving the arrears of rent and damages from the defendant/Appellant. The defendant objected to the filing of the second suit for arrears of rent and damages by the plaintiff by contending that the plaintiff should have filed only one suit containing all the claims. The subsequent suit for receiving arrears of rent and damages could not be entertained due to the specific bar contained under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. Rejecting the appellant/defendant's contention, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale observed that the second suit preferred for receiving the arrears of rent and damages would not be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. Since both the suits were filed on different causes of action, and there was no intention on the part of the plaintiff to relinquish his claim for arrears of rent and damages, therefore, the filing of the subsequent suit for arrears of rent and damages was upheld by the Court. Upon arriving at the decision, the Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath relied on its recent decision in M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. ATM Constructions Pvt Ltd wherein it was held that since a suit for possession and a suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action, therefore a second suit filed claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises would be maintainable after a suit for possession."...suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action. There being different consideration for adjudication, in our opinion, second suit filed by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable," the Court observed. Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Mr. Rathina Asohan, Adv. Ms. T. Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv. Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gurmehar Vaan Singh, Adv. Mr. M.v. Shreedhar, Adv. Mrs. Rosetta Veena Ekka, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AORCase Details: UNIWORLD LOGISTICS PVT LTD VS. INDEV LOGISTICS PVT LTDCitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 469Click here to read/download the Judgment

Subsequent Suit For Rent Arrears Maintainable After Suit For Possession; Both Different Causes Of Action: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Subsequent Suit For Rent Arrears Maintainable After Suit For Possession; Both Different Causes Of Action: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers