Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Introduction
The Supreme Court in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Another dealt with the applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in cases involving subsequent suits based on fresh causes of action. The judgment clarified the scope of Order II Rule 2 CPC, emphasizing that it does not bar subsequent suits when the relief sought was not enforceable at the time of the earlier suit due to external factors like a government ban.
Facts
Respondent No. 1 initially filed a suit claiming reliefs that were barred from enforcement due to a government ban on the registration of sale deeds. The ban was subsequently lifted, triggering a fresh cause of action for Respondent No. 1 to claim additional relief through a subsequent suit. The trial court dismissed the second suit, holding it barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The High Court overturned the trial court's decision, allowing the second suit. The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court.
Issues
1. Whether the subsequent suit filed by Respondent No. 1 was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
2. Whether the lifting of the ban constituted a fresh cause of action permitting the filing of a second suit.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Contention of the Appellant
The second suit violated the mandate of Order II Rule 2 CPC, which requires all claims arising from the same transaction to be included in one suit. Allowing subsequent suits would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and contravene procedural discipline.
Contention of the Respondent
1. The lifting of the government ban on sale deed registration created a fresh cause of action distinct from the initial cause of action.
2. At the time of the first suit, the relief sought in the subsequent suit was unenforceable, and therefore, Order II Rule 2 CPC did not apply.
3. The second suit was not based on a relinquished claim but on a revived right.
Court Analysis
The lifting of the government ban on sale deed registration constituted a fresh cause of action.A subsequent suit based on this fresh cause of action is not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
In Ramjilal v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan (AIR 1964 Raj 114), the Rajasthan High Court held that Order II Rule 2 CPC does not compel a plaintiff to seek reliefs that are impossible to obtain at the time of the suit.
In National Security Assurance Company Ltd. v. S.N. Jaggi (AIR 1971 All 421), the Allahabad High Court opined that claims revived by subsequent events or enactments are not hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC.
In this case, the plaintiff could not have sought the relief of possession in the initial suit because the respondent had acquired possession of the property after the first suit was filed.
The court found no evidence of intentional relinquishment of claims by the plaintiff.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. It was held that Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar subsequent suits when the relief sought arises from a cause of action distinct from the initial suit. The judgment reaffirmed that reliefs that were unenforceable at the time of the first suit can form the basis of a subsequent suit when circumstances change.
