Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice P.B. Varale held that a second suit for arrears of rent and damages would not be barred under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).  
  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 

What is the Background of Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Case? 

• The Appellant in this case was a licensee in respect of a warehouse that belonged to the Respondent. 
• There were total four suits and both the sides had preferred two suits against each other. One suit was withdrawn so total three suits were pending. 
• The two suits in dispute were as follows. 
• The Respondent instituted a suit for permanent injunction and here he specifically pleaded that he reserves the right to claim arrears of rent and also damages due to illegal use and occupation of the property. 
  • This Suit was filed because there was default in payment of storage charges. 
• The Respondent filed another Suit No. 323 of 2016 for recovery of arrears of storage, warehouse charges and damages. 
• The Appellant here filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 of CPC for rejection of plaint.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that there was no relinquishment of claim at any stage and also no omission to claim relief. 
• The Court observed that both the causes of action are separate, and the second suit was clearly maintainable. 
• The Court observed that the Appellant is unnecessarily trying to delay the progress in the suit. 

What is Order II Rule 2? 

• The object of Order II Rule 2 of CPC is based on cardinal principle of law that the defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause. 
• The principle is meant to counteract two evils, namely, (i) splitting up of claims and (ii) splitting up of remedies.   
• Order II Rule 2 of CPC provides that the suit should include the whole claim. 
• Order II Rule 2(1) provides that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish and portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. 
• Order II Rule 2(2) provides for relinquishment of part of claim. 
  • 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 (3) provides for omission to sue for one of several reliefs. 
  • A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. 
  • Explanation: For the purposes of this rule an obligation and collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action. 

What are the Conditions for Applicability of Order II Rule 2 of CPC?  

• The three conditions that must be satisfied are: 
  • The second suit must be in respect of the same cause of action as that on which previous suit was based. 
  • In respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief. 
  • Being thus entitled plaintiff without the leave of the Court omitted to sue for the relief for which second suit has been filed.

What is the Difference Between Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 of CPC? 

What are the Principles Governing Order II rule 2 of CPC? 

• The principles governing Order II rule 2 were laid down in the case of Mohd. Khalil v. Mahbub Ali Mian (1949) by the Privy Council: 
  • The correct test here is whether the claim in the new suit is founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation of the former suit. 
  • The cause of action means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to support his right to the judgment. 
  • If evidence to support the two claims is different the cause of action is also different. 
  • The Cause of Action in two suits may be considered to be same if in substance they are identical. 
  •  The Cause of Action has no relation with the defense that may be set up nor does it depend on the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. 
  • The Cause of Action refers to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.  

Are Claim for Mesne Profits and Claim for Possession Different Cause of Action? 

• In the case of Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhad Ahir (1931), a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the cause of action for possession is not necessarily identical with cause of action for recovery of mesne profits. 
• The provisions of Order II Rule 4 indicate that the legislature thought it necessary to provide for joining of claims for mesne profits with one for recovery of possession. 
•  This judgment was cited in the case of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2023) by a 2 judge Bench of Supreme Court. 
• Order II Rule 4 of CPC provides that only certain claims that can be joined for recovery of immovable property. 
  • No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except— 
    • claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof; 
    • claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held; and 
    • claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action 

What are the Important Case Laws? 

• Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (1964) 
  • The Supreme Court laid down that a plea under Order II Rule 2 of CPC should succeed if following is made out: 
    • that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based 
    • that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief 
    • That being thus entitled to more than one relief plaintiff, without leave obtained from the Court omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. 
• Brahma Singh v. Union of India (2020) 
  • The Court held that bar of Order II Rule 2 of CPC may not apply to writ petitions. 
• Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (2022) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case clarified that the provisions of Order II Rule 2 applies only to “subsequent suit”. 
  • The Court hence held that this provision does not apply to amendment of pleadings. 
  • Thus, the plea of amendment being barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC is misconceived and cannot be allowed.