The Supreme Court has discussed some general principles underlying Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).

The Court was deciding Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Madras High Court by which it allowed the Second Appeal and restored the Plaint.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan explained the following principles –

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 samecause 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.

Senior Advocate V. Prabhakar appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Senior Advocate V. Chitambaresh appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Respondent Company i.e., the Plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale with another Company i.e., the Defendant whereby the Defendant agreed to sell the Suit Property to the Plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Pursuantly, the Plaintiff was put in possession of the said property and the Defendant also executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney (POA) to enable the Plaintiff to complete the formalities as regards the execution and registration of the Sale Deed pertaining to the Suit Property. The POA was registered with the Office of the Sub Registrar. Consequently, the Plaintiff got the agreement for sale in respect of the property. However, the Defendant issued a letter inter alia revoking the POA issued in favour of the Plaintiff to which it issued a reply. Thereafter, the Defendant again issued a letter wherein a Demand Draft (DD) was enclosed. The Plaintiff furnished a notice to the Defendant asking to perform part of the agreement for sale by executing Sale Deed and further not to alienate the property in favour of any other person.

As per the Plaintiff’s case, they had visited the office of the Sub-Registrar on multiple occasions for registering Sale Deed but the same was refused. One more attempt was made to get the same registered but the documents were not accepted by the Revenue Authorities. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff filed a Writ Petition before the High Court and during the pendency of the proceedings, it was found that the Revenue Authorities had declined to register the Sale Deed due to the existence of a Government Order (GO) issued by the State whereby certain parcels of land were reserved exclusively for the purpose of a thermal power station to be set up by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). Consequently, the general ban against registering the property did not operate against the Appellant and a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by an organization representing the agriculturists was filed, challenging the decision of Revenue Authorities.

Allegedly, the Appellant along with the Defendant, started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff’s property. The Plaintiff filed a Suit before the Principal District Judge for permanent injunction to restrain the Appellant and Defendant and the same was pending. The Appellant contended that the Plaintiff cannot seek an injunction against it being the actual owner in possession of the property. Subsequently, the High Court quashed the GO and the Plaintiff filed another Suit (Second Suit) before the First Additional Subordinate Judge. Contending that the Second Suit was hit by the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC, the Appellant moved an Application and the same was allowed. The Plaintiff filed an Appeal Suit but the same was dismissed and then it filed a fresh Appeal Suit. The Trial Court’s Order was confirmed and hence, it filed a Second Appeal which was allowed by the High Court. The Appellant filed a Petition against this but the same was rejected. Resultantly, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “The object of both the Rules 1 and 2 of Order II is to prevent the multiplicity of suits. Order II Rule 2 is founded on the principle that a person should not be vexed twice for one and the same cause. It is a rule which is directed against two evils i.e., the splitting up of claims and the splitting up of remedies. What Order II Rule 2 requires is the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in one suit. However, this must not be misunderstood to mean that every suit shall include every claim or every cause of action which the plaintiff may have against the defendant. Therefore, where the causes of action are different in the two suits, Order II Rule 2 would have no application.”

Status/Stage of the first Suit is immaterial for the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC

The Court noted that Order II Rule 2 CPC does not impose any restriction on the applicability of the principles therein based on the stage or status of the first Suit. It added that, there is no clear requirement that the first Suit either be pending or disposed of in order to make a plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC as regards the second or subsequent Suit.

“It is conspicuous by the absence of such a stipulation that the law makers thought fit that the bar under this provision would apply if there is an identity in the causes of action of both suits and irrespective of whether the first suit is disposed or not”, it said.

The plaints have to be read as a whole to determine the applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC for the purpose of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

The Court emphasised that before rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the Courts must ensure that the plaint is read as a whole and its entire averments are looked into and 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. It added that, 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 II Rule 2.

Application of the principles in Order II Rule 2 CPC to the institution of a suit for specific performance when the relief of permanent injunction was sought in a previous suit.

The Court noted, “In Virgo Industries (supra), initially two suits had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction in order to restrain the defendant-appellant from alienating and encumbering the suit properties on which there were agreements to sell made in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Subsequently, the plaintiff-respondent filed two more suits seeking the relief of specific performance of the said agreements.”

The “entitlement to” along with the “availability of” the relief as a requisite in determining the applicability of Order II Rule 2

The Court remarked that the true import of the bar under Order II 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.

Conclusion

“… the principles governing the applicability of the provisions of Order II 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”, said the Court.

The Court was of the view that the bar under Order II Rule 2 would not be applicable to the facts of the case. It, therefore, held that the bar under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC would not stand in the way of the institution of the Second Suit by the Respondent-Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals.

Cause Title- Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate V. Prabhakar, AOR Sahil Bhalaik, Advocates D. Ravichander, P Dinesh Kumar, Sivagnanam K, Nanchil J Deekshith, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, and Gulshan Jahan.

Respondents: Senior Advocate V. Chitambaresh and AOR K.V. Mohan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment