Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73 – A Land Mark Decision on Order II rule 2, CPC

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Abstract

  • The Supreme Court found in this case: to attract Order II Rule 2 CPC –
    • the omission in the fist suit must have been “deliberate“
    • the relief in the second suit must have been “available” at the time of first suit.
    • cause of action in both suits must have been the identical in substance and not merely technically.
    • evidence required to support the claims must have been the same.
  • Brief Facts: The sale deed executed between the parties could not have been registered owing to the ‘ban’ under a GO. The purchaser filed a suit for injunction to restrain the ‘previous’ owner. Subsequently the GO was quashed by the HC. The second suit for Sp. Performance was resisted by the ‘previous’ owner saying – ‘no injunction against owner’. Trial Court rejected the plaint allowing the Order II Rule 2 CPC petition. First Appellate Court confirmed the Order. But the HC reversed. The SC dismissed the appeal.

Agreement for Sale between plaintiff and defendant

The original plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of suit property with original defendant no. 1 (owner). The plaintiff (purchaser) was put in possession of the property.

The purchaser visited the office of the Sub Registrar on multiple occasions for the purpose of registering the sale deed executed between the parties. However, the registration was refused pointing out general ban against registration under a G.O. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the decision of the revenue authorities.

Plaintiff (purchaser) filed Suit for injunction

The defendant (owner) started to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff (purchaser). Hence he filed the “first suit” before the Principal District Judge for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant (owner) from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

The defendant (owner) in its written statement stated that he was in possession of the suit property, at the time of both the sale agreement and the sale deed. And, that the plaintiff (purchaser) cannot seek an injunction against the appellant, as he was the actual owner in possession of the suit property and that the injunction suit was still pending before the concerned court.

Plaintiff (purchaser) filed the second OS for Specific Performance

Subsequently, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court quashed the G.O. The High Court directed the revenue authorities to receive and register all the documents.

In this situation the plaintiff (purchaser) filed the second Original Suit praying (inter alia) that the defendant (owner) “be directed to specifically perform the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale”.

Argument of Appellant defendant (owner)

In Vurimi Pullarao v. Vemari Venkata Radharani, (2020) 14 SCC 110, it was held that (in the light of earlier injunction suit) the second suit for specific performance was barred under Order II Rule 2.

HC found – no “deliberate omission” in suing for Sp. Performance, earlier

The defendant (owner), contending that the second suit is hit by the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC, moved an I.A. under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, for the rejection of plaint. It was allowed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court confirmed the order. But the High Court allowed the second appeal ex-parte and restored the plaint finding that the second suit was not hit by the bar under Order II Rule 2. It observed that there was no “deliberate omission on the part of the plaintiff to make a claim in the earlier suit”.  The High Court held:

  • “Further, in a case of this nature wherein the possession of the suit property is said to have been handed over to the agreement holder, it is not an unusual situation of sudden interference by the land owner warranting the agreement holder to file a suit for bare injunction. Therefore, if any such situation arises, the agreement holder cannot be precluded from claiming or seeking an immediate and emergent relief first in order to prevent further damage or abuse. Therefore, filing of such suit for bare injunction also by reserving the right to file a comprehensive suit later cannot be construed or considered as the one arising out of same cause of action in order to bring it under the hammer of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.”

Hence the defendant (owner) filed this Appeal before the Supreme Court.

Findings of the SC, on Order II Rule 2 CPC, in a Nutshell

Appeal is dismissed by the Supreme Court (in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73, J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, JJ.) on the following main observations.

  • i. Order II Rule 2 contemplate – where a plaintiff omits or relinquishes
    • a part of a claim which he is entitled to make and,
    • secondly, one out of the several reliefs that he could have claimed in the suit.
  • 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 is not different causes of action arising from the same transaction.
  • 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. The applicability of Order II Rule 2 is depended upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
  • v. Additionally, if the evidence required to support the claims is different, then the causes of action can also be considered to be different.
  • vi. The plaintiff must have been entitled to more than one relief in respect of that cause of action.
  • vii. The plaintiff, without any leave of the Court, omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed.
  • vi. The  plaintiff must have deliberately relinquished the relief.
  • 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.

The Supreme Court Court held in para 44 as under:

  • “44. Therefore, the phrase “cause of action” for the purposes of Order II Rule 2 would mean the cause of action which gives an occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. If that cause enables a person to ask for a larger and wider relief than that to which he limits his claim, he cannot be permitted to recover the balance reliefs through independent proceedings afterwards, especially when the leave of the court has not been obtained.”

Authorities relied on by the Apex Court While Discussing General Principles on Order II Rule 2  

1. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary: Words and Phrases (4th Edn.): “cause of action” – existence of those facts which give a party the right to judicial interference on his behalf. It is the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain a judgment.

2. Black’s Law Dictionary – Cause of action is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person.

3. Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn.): ‘Cause of action’ -simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. It includes every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. “’Cause of action’ has also been taken to mean that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject-matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action.”

4. Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian, AIR 1949 PC 78

  • “Cause of action” is facts for the Plaintiff to prove to get a judgment
  • It depends on the particular facts of each case.
  • It is the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.
  • The test is whether the foundation of the cause of action is distinct from that of the former suit.
  • The evidence to support the claims determines whether the cause of action is different or not.
  • The causes of action is same if they are identical in substance and not merely technically identical.
  • Cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation of the former suit.
  • The cause of action has no relation to the defence that may be set up by the defendant. It is not depended on the character of the relief prayed for by the Plaintiff, also.

5. In Brunsden v. Humphrey (14 Q.B.D. 141)

  • The principal consideration is whether the same cause of action in both suits.
  • One of the tests that is applied is whether the same evidence will maintain both suits.
  • If the evidence required to support the claims is different, then the causes of action are also different.
  • The application of the rule depends, not upon any technical consideration of the identity of forms of action, but upon matter of substance.
  • The cause of action arising from damage to the plaintiff’s cab is in substance identical with that which accrues in consequence of the damage caused to his person.

6. Soorjomonee Dayee v. Suddanund [12 Beng. [(1873) 12 Beng L.R. 304, 315]

  • Cause of action is to be construed with reference rather to the substance than to the form of action.

7. Krishna Behari Roy v. Brojeswari Chowdranne [(1875) LR 2.I.A. 283, 285.

  • Cause of action cannot be taken in its literal and most restricted sense.

8.  Pittapur v. Sri Rajah Venkata Mahipati Surya [(1885) L.R. 12.I.A. 116]

  • The plaintiff sued to recover immovable property he being improperly turned out of possession; and afterwards sued to recover from the same defendant, in consequence of its wrongful detention. It was held that the causes of action in the two suits were distinct.

9. Muhammad Hafiz v. Muhammad Zakariya [(1921) L.R. 49.I.A. 9, 15]:

  • If the cause enables a man to ask for larger and wider relief than that to which he limits his claim, he cannot afterwards seek to recover the balance by independent proceedings.

10. Brunsden v. Humphrey (14 Q.B.D. 141)

  • The cause of action which gave occasion for and formed the foundation for the first suit in that case was different from the cause of action which gave occasion for and formed the foundation for the second suit.

11. Gurbux Singh v. Bhoorala, AIR 1964 SC 1810 (Constitutional Bench)

  • The plaint in the former suit would have to be produced in the subsequent suit.
  • The “cause of action” would be the facts which the plaintiff had then alleged to support the right to the relief that he claimed.
  • The defendant who seeks to take recourse to a successful plea under Order II Rule 2(3) must make out the following:
  • .(a) that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based;
  • (b) that in respect of that cause of action, the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; and
  • (c) that 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.

The Court had observed further as under:

  • “6. In order that a plea of a Bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code should succeed the defendant who raises the plea must make out;
  • .(i) that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based;
  • (2) that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief;
  • (3) that being thus entitled to more than one relief the plaintiff, without leave obtained from the Court omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed.
  • From this analysis it would be seen that the defendant would have to establish primarily and to start with, the precise cause of action upon which the previous suit was filed, for unless there is identity between the cause of action on which the earlier suit was filed and that on which the claim in the latter suit is based there would be no scope for the application of the bar. No doubt, a relief which is sought in a plaint could ordinarily be traceable to a particular cause of action but this might, by no means, be the universal rule.
  • As the plea is a technical bar it has to be established satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on basis of inferential reasoning. It is for this reason that we consider that a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code can be established only if the defendant files in evidence the pleadings in the previous suit and thereby proves to the Court the identity of the cause of action in the two suits. It is common ground that the pleadings in CS 28 of 1950 were not filed by the appellant in the present suit as evidence in support of his plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
  • The learned trial Judge, however, without these pleadings being on the record inferred what the cause of action should have been from the reference to the previous suit contained in the plaint as a matter of deduction. At the stage of the appeal the learned District Judge noticed this lacuna in the appellant’s case and pointed out, in our opinion, rightly that without the plaint in the previous suit being on the record, a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable.”

12. S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore, (2007) 11 SCC 75

  • It is necessary to mark the earlier plaint in evidence and then make out that there was a relinquishment of a relief by the plaintiff, without the leave of the Court.

13. Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, (2013) 1 SCC 625

 The bar under Order II Rule 2 would apply to the subsequent suits filed for specific performance   when the plaintiff itself had claimed in the first set of suits for injunction that the defendant had no intention to honour the agreement to sell.

14. Inbasagaran v. S. Natarajan reported in (2015) 11 SCC 12

  • The respondent was allotted the suit property as a house site by the Housing Board through a lease-cum-sale agreement, however, on a condition that a sale deed would be executed in favour of the respondent only when he constructs a building in the suit property. In the meantime, the respondent had entered into an agreement for sale with the appellant and obtained a part of the sale consideration as well.
  • It was agreed that the appellant shall prepare a plan for construction of the building in the suit property, the respondent would get it approved and thereafter, the appellant would undertake the construction at his own cost. The appellant took possession of the suit property and completed the construction. Thereafter, the Housing Board on 18.02.1985 had executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent. The appellant alleged that the respondent attempted to forcefully take possession of the building constructed on the suit property and was therefore, constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction on 11.09.1985. In response to this, the respondent also filed a similar suit for permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
  • It was in this suit for injunction that the respondent disclosed to the appellant that the execution of the sale deed in his favour by the Housing Board was complete. After the said factum of transfer was brought to the notice of the appellant, he had sent a legal notice to the respondent and on 25.04.1986, he filed another suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. In short, since the plaintiff-appellant only came to know of the sale deed executed by the Housing Board in favour of the respondent after the institution of the first suit, the cause of action was held to be different and distinct in both the suits.

14. Rathnavati v. Kavita Ganashamdas, (2015) 5 SCC 223

The Court refused to accept the submission that the second suit for specific performance was barred by the principles underlying Order II Rule 2. Here, an agreement for sale was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 for the sale of the suit house and part payment was also made by the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff had filed the first suit against the defendants for seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit house since the defendant no. 1 who is a total stranger to the suit house, along with defendant no. 2 who was the vendor.

15. Vurimi Pullarao v. Vemari Venkata Radharani, (2020) 14 SCC 110

It is held as under:

  • “The cause of action for the suit for specific performance had arisen when the plaintiff had notice of the denial by the defendant to perform the contract. On 30-10- 1996 when the suit for injunction was instituted, the plaintiff was entitled to sue for specific performance. There was a complete identity of the cause of action between the earlier suit (of which para 2 of the plaint has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment) and the cause of action for the subsequent suit. Yet, as the record indicates, the plaintiff omitted to sue for specific performance. This is a relief for which the plaintiff was entitled to sue when the earlier suit for injunction was instituted. Having omitted the claim for relief without the leave of the Court, the bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) would stand attracted.”

16. Ramjilal v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, AIR 1964 Raj 114

The Rajasthan High Court had opined that Order II Rule 2 does not require that a person must seek all the remedies to which he may be entitled to even though it would be impossible for him to obtain the remedy from the opposite party. That is, the relief in the second suit became “available” on the happening of a subsequent event; post the institution of the first suit. Hence, the bar under Order II Rule 2 would not stand in the way of the plaintiff for claiming those reliefs.

17. National Security Assurance Company Ltd. v. S.N. Jaggi, AIR 1971 All 421

The Allahabad High Court  held that a subsequent suit in respect of a claim which was barred at the time of the earlier suit but revived later on by an enactment would not be hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2. Here also the relief became “available”, post the institution of the first suit.

The Supreme Court summarised the General Principles under Order II Rule 2 CPC as under:

  • 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 same cause 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.

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment