Supreme Court Judgment related to the application of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which aims to prevent multiple lawsuits based on the same cause of action. The specific case involves an appellant and a respondent, with the core issue being whether a second lawsuit seeking specific performance of a sale agreement and cancellation of a subsequent sale deed is barred by a previously filed suit for permanent injunction relating to the same property. The Supreme court analyzes the factual background of the two suits, the arguments presented by both parties, and explores the meaning of “cause of action” and the conditions under which Order II Rule 2 applies, including when a relief must be “available” to the plaintiff at the time of filing the first suit.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 2 Rule 2; Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Civil Procedure – Rejection of plaint – Bar to second suit – Held that the principles governing the applicability of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 do not operate as a bar when the subsequent suit is based on a cause of action different from that on which the first suit was based and that the identity of the causes of action in both the suits must be the material consideration before the court which decide the applicability of this provision to a second suit filed by the plaintiff – It would be incorrect to hold that merely because the pleadings in the plaint filed in O.S. No. 28 of 2008 and the plaint filed in O.S. No. 122 of 2008 are similar to some extent, the causes of action are also identical – Rejecting the plaint in the second suit i.e., O.S. No. 122 of 2008 would result in depriving the respondent no. 1 from claiming the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 24.01.2007 and the cancellation of the sale deed dated 24.01.2008 – On examining the entire factual matrix along with the causes of action on which both the suits were founded, through a holistic reading of the plaints 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 – Held that the bar under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC would not stand in the way of the institution of the second suit by the respondent no. 1 (original plaintiff) – Questions relating to whether such an agreement for sale dated 24.01.2007 could have been entered into by the respondent no.1 in ignorance of the subsistence of the ban which was imposed by the G.O. dated 08.08.1986 to begin with and whether the appellant entering into a subsequent sale deed dated 24.01.2008 during the existence of the aforementioned agreement to sell was a bona fide purchaser of the suit property, along with all other pertinent questions, are all issues which will have to be determined by the Trial Court on merits.
(Para 86, 88 and 90)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 2 Rule 2 – Phrase “cause of action” – Held that phrase ‘cause of action’ for the purposes of Order 2 Rule 2 would mean the cause of action which gives an occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit – If that cause enables a person to ask for a larger and wider relief than that to which he limits his claim, he cannot be permitted to recover the balance reliefs through independent proceedings afterwards, especially when the leave of the court has not been obtained – A Constitutional Bench of this Court in Gurbux Singh (supra) emphasized that the plaint in the former suit would have to be produced in order to sustain a plea of applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 in the subsequent suit – While stating so, the Court observed that the “cause of action” would be the facts which the plaintiff had then alleged to support the right to the relief that he claimed – The Court also laid down that the defendant who seeks to take recourse to a successful plea under Order 2 Rule 2(3) must make out the following: (a) that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (b) that in respect of that cause of action, the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; and (c) that 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.
(Para 44 and 45)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 2 Rule 2; Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Civil Procedure – Rejection of plaint – Bar to second suit – Expression ‘cause of action’ – On the basis of case law it is laid down as follows:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Since the plea is a technical bar, it has to be established satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of inferential reasoning.
(Para 47)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 2 Rule 2; Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Civil Procedure – Rejection of plaint – Bar to second suit – Held that the stage at which the first suit is, would not be a material consideration in deciding the applicability of the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 – What needs to be looked into is whether the cause of action in both suits is one and the same in substance, and whether the plaintiff is agitating the second suit for claiming a relief which was very well available to him at the time of filing the first suit – Therefore, the fact that the first suit i.e., O.S. No. 28 of 2008 is still pending before the concerned court would have no material impact in deciding whether the subsequent suit filed as O.S. No. 122 of 2008 is barred by the principles under Order 2 Rule 2.
(Para 51)
(E) Order 7 Rule 11(d); Order 2 Rule 2 – Civil Procedure – Rejection of plaint – Held that before rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the Courts must ensure that the plaint is read as a whole and its entire averments are looked into – A few lines or passages must not be read in isolation and it is imperative that the pleadings are read as a whole for ascertaining the true import of the averments therein – In performing such a holistic reading, it must be deduced whether the causes of action in both the suits are identical in substance in order to sustain a successful plea under Order 2 Rule 2 – It would be a reductive approach to only cull out the cause of action paragraphs from the respective plaints and decide that they disclose the same cause of action on mere comparative overview.
(Para 56)
(F) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 2 Rule 2 – Civil Procedure – Phrase “any portion of his claim” – The phrase “any portion of his claim” must essentially be understood to mean any portion of his claim which he is entitled to make for the simple reason that there cannot be a deliberate or intentional relinquishment of any portion of a claim, if the plaintiff was not entitled to it – Therefore, the true import of the bar under Order 2 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.
(Para 73)
(G) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 2 Rule 2; Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Civil Procedure – Rejection of plaint – Bar to second suit – Held 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 the happening of a subsequent event, post the institution of the first suit, then the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 would not stand in the way of the plaintiff who has instituted a subsequent suit for claiming those reliefs – It can be said that the occurrence of that subsequent event gives rise to a fresh cause of action to the concerned plaintiff for claiming certain reliefs which he was otherwise prevented from claiming.
(Para 77)
Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. V. M/S Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited & Anr
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 73: (DoJ 15-01-2025)
