Supreme Court observes: bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC inapplicable when causes of action are different, Read Judgment

The Supreme Court in a recent case observed that "Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (referred to as “CPC”) prevents the splitting of claims, but does not apply if the causes of action in the two suits are distinct," emphasizing that the key test is whether the new suit is based on a distinct cause of action.

The central question before the Court was whether the respondent, having filed an injunction suit in the first instance, could later seek specific performance in a second suit. The Court noted that if the relief sought in the second suit arises from a subsequent event, such as the lifting of a government restriction, the bar under Order II Rule 2 would not apply.

The dispute centered on a 1-acre land in Thiyagavalli, Cuddalore, where M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. (respondent no.1) entered into an agreement with Mrs. Senthamizh Selvi (respondent no.2) for its purchase in January 2007. After paying the full consideration and receiving possession, respondent no.1 was granted a Power of Attorney. However, in November 2007, respondent no.2 revoked the Power of Attorney and returned the money, claiming it was for a loan repayment.

Respondent no.1 attempted to enforce the sale agreement but faced interference when the appellant, Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd., registered its own sale deed in January 2008. The Madras High Court later quashed a Government Order affecting the land, and respondent no.1 filed a second suit for specific performance. The trial court initially rejected the suit, but the High Court allowed a second appeal, restoring the suit and directing a trial. The appellant’s requests to reopen the case were denied, and the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. V. Prabhakar, argued that the second suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, as the respondent no. 1 could have sought specific performance in the first suit but only opted for a permanent injunction. This omission, despite knowledge of the sale deed and refusal to perform the contract, was a deliberate relinquishment of the claim. Furthermore, the respondent was aware of the sale to the appellant before filing the first suit, as reflected in the plaint. No leave was granted for a separate suit for specific performance, as required under Order II Rule 2(3).

The counsel also pointed to the Vurimi Pullarao case, where a second suit was barred under similar circumstances. Additionally, the High Court had wrongly rejected the appellant’s petition for a hearing. The counsel requested that the High Court’s orders be set aside and the trial court’s decision restored.

The respondent’s counsel, Mr. V. Chitambaresh, argued that the causes of action in the first and second suits are distinct, and the second suit is not barred by Order II Rule 2. The first suit sought an injunction against dispossession, while the second suit seeks specific performance and a declaration that the sale deed is void. The respondent was unaware of the appellant’s sale deed at the time of the first suit and reserved the right to seek specific performance later.

The second suit included new facts, such as a High Court decision quashing the government’s refusal to register the sale deed, which could not be part of the first suit. The respondent, as the original purchaser, was in possession of the property, while the appellant’s purchase occurred later. Citing case law, the counsel argued that Order II Rule 2 does not apply and rejecting the second suit would leave the respondent without a remedy. The counsel thus requested dismissal of the petition and affirmed the High Court’s judgment.

The Court considered whether Order II Rule 2 CPC bars the respondent from filing a second suit

. The Court highlighted key provisions of Order II Rule 2:

• "Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action." (Order II Rule 2(1))
• "Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished." (Order II Rule 2(2))
• "A plaintiff who omits to sue for one of several reliefs may file a subsequent suit only if the leave of the court was obtained." (Order II Rule 2(3))

The Court clarified that Order II Rule 2 prevents the splitting of claims, but does not apply if the causes of action in the two suits are distinct. It stressed that the key test is whether the new suit is based on a cause of action distinct from the original suit. The defendant must prove the identity of the cause of action and show that the plaintiff failed to seek a second relief without court permission.

The Court also emphasized that the plea under Order II Rule 2 must be based on actual pleadings from the previous suit, not inferential reasoning. A holistic reading of the plaint is necessary to determine whether the suit is barred.

The Court referenced previous cases, such as Virgo Industries, where a claim for specific performance was barred because it was omitted in the first suit without leave from the Court. In contrast, in Inbasagaran and Rathnavathi, the causes of action for the two suits were distinct, and thus the bar did not apply.

The Court examined the revocation of the Power of Attorney and concluded that it was "sufficient for the respondent no. 1, as a reasonable individual, to infer that the respondent no. 2 did not intend to perform her part of the agreement for sale." This act, along with the execution of a sale deed in favor of the appellant, indicated a refusal to perform the agreement.

The Court held that if a relief becomes available due to a subsequent event, such as the quashing of a government ban, the bar under Order II Rule 2 does not apply. In this case, the respondent could not seek specific performance until the High Court lifted the ban, creating a new cause of action.

The decision of the Court:

The Court held that the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC did not prevent the respondent no. 1 (original plaintiff) from filing the second suit. It clarified that no views were expressed on the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.

Picture Source :