Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment arising from Civil Appeal Nos. 372-373 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1297-1298 of 2025), has provided crucial clarity on the applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This ruling, delivered by J.B. Pardiwala, J., reaffirms that the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply to a subsequent suit if the relief sought in the second suit was genuinely unavailable or could not have been claimed by the plaintiff at the time of instituting the first suit. This decision underscores the importance of the actual “availability” and “entitlement to” a relief when assessing the bar on splitting claims or reliefs.
1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The dispute originated from an agreement for sale dated January 24, 2007, between M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited (Respondent No. 1/Original Plaintiff) and Mrs. Senthamizh Selvi (Respondent No. 2/Original Defendant No. 1) concerning a 1-acre property in Thiyagavalli, Cuddalore. The entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid, and possession of the suit property was handed over to the Respondent No. 1. A registered irrevocable Power of Attorney was also executed by Respondent No. 2 on March 26, 2007, to facilitate the sale deed’s registration, and the agreement for sale itself was registered on September 7, 2007.
Subsequently, on November 2, 2007, Respondent No. 2 attempted to revoke the Power of Attorney and, later, on February 6, 2008, enclosed a demand draft of Rs. 1,50,000, claiming it was for a loan, not the sale consideration. Respondent No. 1 returned the demand draft and issued a notice on February 9, 2008, demanding execution of the sale deed and non-alienation of the property.
Attempts by Respondent No. 1 to register the sale deed were refused by revenue authorities due to a Government Order (GO) dated August 8, 1986, which reserved certain lands, including the suit property, for a thermal power station to be set up by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). This ban did not apply to Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. (Appellant/Original Defendant No. 2).
Upon experiencing interference with possession by the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 from the second week of February 2008, Respondent No. 1 filed the first suit, O.S. No. 28 of 2008, on February 16, 2008, for a permanent injunction to restrain interference with possession. In this first suit, the Appellant disclosed that it had entered into a bona fide agreement for sale with Respondent No. 2 on February 20, 2007, and a sale deed in its favour was registered on January 24, 2008.
Crucially, a Public Interest Litigation (W.P. No. 11453 of 2007) was heard by the Madras High Court on March 5, 2008, which quashed the GO dated August 8, 1986, and directed revenue authorities to register documents pertaining to the villages, including Thiyagavalli. Respondent No. 1’s own Writ Petition (No. 1783 of 2008) challenging the refusal to register was also disposed of on similar terms on March 25, 2008.
Alleging knowledge of the sale deed in favour of the Appellant only after the institution of the first suit, Respondent No. 1 filed the second suit, O.S. No. 122 of 2008. This second suit sought specific performance of the agreement for sale, a declaration that the sale deed dated January 24, 2008 (in favour of the Appellant) was null and void, and a permanent injunction.
The Appellant contended that the second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC. The High Court, however, allowed the second appeal and restored the plaint in O.S. No. 122 of 2008. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The primary legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was:
- Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the principles enumerated under Order II Rule 2 CPC would bar the institution of the second suit and warrant rejection of the plaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 in O.S. No. 122 of 2008?
3. Arguments of the Parties
- Appellant’s Arguments (Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd.) The Appellant contended that the second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC. They argued that the cause of action for specific performance, particularly the alleged breach of the agreement for sale, was complete and known to the Respondent No. 1 at the time of filing the first suit for injunction. They suggested that all reliefs arising from the same cause of action should have been claimed in the initial suit. The Appellant relied on precedents like Virgo Industries (P) Ltd. v. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd., arguing that the facts were pari materia and that if the cause of action for specific performance existed when the injunction suit was filed, then the subsequent suit would be barred.
- Respondents’ Arguments (M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited) The Respondent No. 1 argued that the second suit was not barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC. Their key submission was that the relief of specific performance and the declaration regarding the sale deed in favour of the Appellant were not “available” to them at the time the first suit for injunction was filed. They highlighted the following points:
- Knowledge of the sale deed in favour of the Appellant was acquired only after the institution of the first suit.
- The government ban on registration, which was only quashed by the High Court in March 2008 (after the first suit’s filing), made it impossible to seek specific performance earlier, as the sale deed could not have been registered.
- The first suit was a “bare injunction” suit filed due to imminent threat of dispossession, which did not necessarily encompass a comprehensive cause of action for specific performance at that moment.
- Rejecting the plaint in the second suit would leave the Respondent No. 1 without a remedy.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC, stating that its object is to prevent multiplicity of suits and avoid vexing a defendant twice for the same cause. However, the Court clarified that this rule applies only when the causes of action in the two suits are identical in substance.
The Court emphasized that “cause of action” means every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support their right to judgment. A crucial test for Order II Rule 2 is whether the claim in the new suit is founded upon a cause of action distinct from that of the former suit. If the evidence required to support the two claims is different, then the causes of action are also different.
The Supreme Court critically distinguished its previous ruling in Virgo Industries, which was heavily relied upon by the Appellant. In Virgo Industries, the plaintiff had already averred in the first suit (for injunction) that the defendant had no intention to honor the agreement, thus furnishing a complete cause of action for specific performance even at that initial stage. The relief of specific performance was “available” and “entitled to” by the plaintiff then.
However, in the present case, the Court found the situation different. The Respondent No. 1 had no knowledge of the sale deed in favour of the Appellant when the first suit for injunction was filed. More importantly, the government ban on registration of properties in the area (GO dated August 8, 1986) was still in force, making it legally impossible to seek the relief of specific performance with immediate effect, as any registered sale deed would have been voidable. The ban was only lifted by the High Court’s decision in March 2008, after the first suit was filed.
The Court stressed that the “entitlement to” a relief, along with its “availability,” is a requisite in determining the applicability of Order II Rule 2. It cited decisions that held that when it is not possible for the plaintiff to obtain a particular relief in the first instance, but such relief becomes available upon a subsequent event (post-institution of the first suit), then the bar under Order II Rule 2 would not apply.
The Supreme Court also reiterated that for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC (which deals with suits barred by law), the plaint must be read as a whole. A few isolated lines or passages should not be used to prematurely conclude that the causes of action are identical.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was correct in holding that the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC would not stand in the way of the institution of the second suit by the Respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff). The Court set aside the High Court’s interim order for reasons not detailed in the provided excerpts, but affirmed the core legal principle regarding Order II Rule 2.
This judgment reinforces that Order II Rule 2 CPC is a procedural rule aimed at preventing vexatious litigation, but it cannot be applied mechanically to bar a legitimate second suit when the relief sought was genuinely unavailable or could not have been claimed at the time the first suit was filed due to specific factual or legal impediments.
FAQs:
1. Can I file a second lawsuit if I forgot to ask for a certain relief in my first case?
Generally, under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, you cannot file a second lawsuit for a relief you intentionally omitted or could have claimed in your first suit arising from the same cause of action.
2. What does “cause of action” mean in the context of filing a lawsuit?
Cause of action” refers to the set of facts or circumstances that give rise to your right to sue someone. If the facts needed to support your claim in a second suit are different from those in your first, it might indicate a distinct cause of action.
3. Does Order II Rule 2 CPC prevent all subsequent lawsuits related to the same property dispute?
No, Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar every subsequent lawsuit. It specifically applies if the second suit is based on the same cause of action as the first and the relief could have been claimed then. If the relief became available only later due to new events, a second suit might be permissible.
4. If a legal relief (like specific performance) was impossible to obtain at the time of my first suit, can I seek it later in a new suit?
Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that if a particular relief was genuinely unavailable or could not have been legally claimed at the time you filed your first suit (for example, due to a government ban or lack of crucial information), a subsequent suit for that relief might not be barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.
5. How do courts decide if a second lawsuit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC?
Courts examine the entire plaint of both suits to determine if the “cause of action” for the second suit is substantially identical to the first. They also consider whether the specific relief sought in the second suit was truly “available” and could have been “entitled to” by the plaintiff when the first suit was filed.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.