Introduction 

• Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) lays down the process of Framing of Suit. 
• The primary objective of this Order is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure that all disputes between parties arising from the same cause of action are adjudicated comprehensively in a single proceeding.  
• This is based on the maxim "nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" - no person should be vexed twice for the same cause. 
• The Order mandates that every suit shall include the whole of the claim arising from the same cause of action.  
• This principle is not merely directory but mandatory in nature, as established through numerous judicial pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. 

What is Order II of CPC? 

• Key Aspects governed by Order II include: 
  • The obligation to bring forward the entire claim in one suit. 
  • The consequences of omitting to sue for any portion of the claim. 
  • The circumstances under which causes of action may be joined. 
  • The restrictions on joinder of causes of action. 
  • The court's power to order separate trials.
• Order II states the following rules as: 
  • Rule 1: Frame of Suit 
    • This rule states that the claim arising out of a cause of action must include all grounds of relief and remedies available that can lead to claiming complete relief. 
  • Rule 2: Suit to include the Whole Claim 
    • 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. 
    • 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. 
  • 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 the 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 a second suit has been filed. 

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

• Rule 3: Joinder of Causes of Action 
  • This rule allows the plaintiff to join other plaintiffs in the cause of action in which they are jointly interested in the same suit. 
  • In a similar way the defendants may join the other defendants for the cause of action they are jointly interested in the same suit. 
  • Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matter at the date of instituting the suit.
• Rule 4: Only Certain Claims to be joined for Recovery of Immovable Property 
  • The following claims can be allowed for the joinder of cause of action without the leave of the court: 
    • Claims for mesne profits 
    • Claims for rent 
    • Claims for damages for breach of contract 
    • Claims for injuries to property 
• Rule 5: Claims by or against Executor, Administrator or Heir 
  • This rule states that there shall be no claim m by or against an executor, administrator or heir shall be joined by or against him personally. 
  • Subject to the condition that the last-mentioned claims are alleged to arise with reference to the estate in respect of which the plaintiff or defendant sues or is sued as executor, administrator or heir, or are such as he was entitled to, or liable for, jointly with the deceased person whom he represents.
• Rule 6: Power of Court to order Separate Trials 
  • This rule states that when it appears to the Court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the Court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice.
• Rule 7: Objections as to Misjoinder 
  • This rule states that all objections on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived. 

Landmark Judgements 

• 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.

Conclusion

The provisions contained herein are both substantive and procedural in nature, providing a comprehensive framework for the institution of civil suits while safeguarding the interests of all parties involved in litigation. Any interpretation of these provisions must be made in light of the twin objectives of ensuring complete justice while preventing abuse of the judicial process through multiplicity of proceedings.