2017 (2) TMI 1505 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking permanent injunction against the original tenant - restraint from constructing any permanent structure on the tenanted premises and further from subletting the same or transfer it in any manner - HELD THAT - Filing of the plaint of earlier suit and proving it as per law is imperative to sustain the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure. Unless that is done, the stand would not be entertainable. Though Mr. Tanmay Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Respondents has made enormous effort to distinguish the decision in GURBUX SINGH VERSUS BHOORALAL 1964 (4) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT , the same is not distinguishable. It is mandatory that to sustain a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Defendant is obliged under law to prove the plaint and the proof has to be as per the law of evidence. Matter remanded to the High Court for proper appreciation of the material on record and to deal with the contentions raised by the Appellants therein in accordance with law within the parameters of the revisional jurisdiction - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Application of the principle of Order 2 Rule 2 in the case.
3. Consideration of merits of the case by the High Court.
4. Remittance of the matter to the High Court for further review.

Interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The appellant, a landlord, sought a permanent injunction against the tenant from constructing permanent structures on the premises or subletting it. The trial court partially decreed the suit. The appellant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed. The appellant then filed civil revision applications, which were also dismissed by the High Court. The appellant argued that the courts erred in applying Order 2 Rule 2 without proving the earlier suit's plaint. The respondent contended that the High Court correctly applied the rule. The Supreme Court emphasized that proving the earlier suit's plaint is essential to sustain a plea under Order 2 Rule 2.

Application of the principle of Order 2 Rule 2 in the case:
The Supreme Court referred to the Gurbux Singh case, highlighting the necessity of proving the earlier suit's plaint to establish the identity of the cause of action. The Court also cited a Full Bench decision of the High Court of Patna, emphasizing the need for proper proof of the plaint. Despite efforts to distinguish the Gurbux Singh case, the Court found the respondent's arguments insufficient. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision based on Order 2 Rule 2 was not sustainable.

Consideration of merits of the case by the High Court:
The Supreme Court noted that while the trial and appellate courts examined whether the tenant had constructed permanent structures without the landlord's consent, the High Court did not address this aspect. Therefore, the Supreme Court decided to remit the matter to the High Court for a proper review of the case's merits and contentions within the parameters of revisional jurisdiction.

Remittance of the matter to the High Court for further review:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal related to eviction, setting aside the High Court's judgment and remitting the matter for reconsideration on merits. The Court clarified that the High Court should not entertain an amendment to bring the plaint on record if it was not proved. Additionally, the Court directed the High Court to dispose of the civil revision application within six months and emphasized that the matter of eviction alone should be dealt with.

This judgment underscores the importance of proving the earlier suit's plaint to sustain a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 and highlights the need for a comprehensive review of both legal principles and factual merits in civil cases.