2013 (11) TMI 1747 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether the second suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2.
3. Scope and interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The case concerns the applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of two suits filed by the Respondent. The first suit (Original Suit No. 1145 of 2003) was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 44,30,994 against the Appellant bank and its officers. The second suit (Suit No. 288/03/04 of 2003) was filed for claiming damages of Rs. 3,09,000/- against the bank and its officers for withdrawing credit facilities.

2. Whether the second suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2:
The bank and its officers filed an application u/r 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure in the second suit for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by Order 2 Rule 2. The District Court concluded that the cause of action in both suits was the same and the relief sought in the second suit could have been claimed in the first suit. Therefore, the application was allowed, and the plaint was rejected. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, holding that the causes of action in the two suits were different. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly applied the legal principles.

3. Scope and interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2:
Order 2 Rule 2 mandates that every suit shall include the whole of the claim arising out of the same cause of action. If a Plaintiff omits to sue or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he cannot sue for the omitted portion later. The Supreme Court reiterated that if the cause of action is the same, the Plaintiff must place all claims before the Court in one suit to avoid vexing the Defendant twice for the same cause. The Court reviewed the plaints and found that the facts on which the second suit was based existed at the time of filing the first suit. No fresh cause of action arose between the two suits. Therefore, the Respondent could have sought the reliefs claimed in the second suit in the first suit itself.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Respondent had omitted certain reliefs available at the time of filing the first suit and, after relinquishing the same, could not file a separate suit. The High Court erred in reversing the District Court's order. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. There was no order as to costs.