2012 (9) TMI 808 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeals against the order of High Court wherein Court has refused to interdict the proceedings pending in the Court of District Judge filed by the respondents herein on ground that provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC would be applicable only when the first suit is disposed of - agreement to sale of land and superstructures thereon between plaintiff and respondent - plaintiff seeking a decree on 29.05.07 against the defendant for execution and registration of the sale deeds in respect of the same property and for delivery of possession thereof to the plaintiff in respect of the which plaintiff had earlier filed on 27.07.2005 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Held that - In the present case second set of suits were filed during the pendency of the earlier suits. High Court following the judicial discpline, held that the provisions of Order II, Rule 2(3) will not be attracted. However, we are unable to agree with the same in view of the object behind the enactment of the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, namely, that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC seeks to avoid multiplicity of litigations on same cause of action. If that is the true object of the law, the same would not stand fully subserved by holding that the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC will apply only if the first suit is disposed of and not in a situation where the second suit has been filed during the pendency of the first suit. Rather, Order II, Rule 2 of the CPC will apply to both the aforesaid situations. In view of aforesaid, present appeals deserve to be allowed. Accordingly order of High Court is set aside. Consequently, we strike off the plaint in O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 on the file of District Judge, Thiruvallur.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of subsequent suits under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
2. Cause of action for the relief of specific performance.
3. Applicability of Order II Rule 2(3) CPC when the first suit is pending.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Subsequent Suits under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):

The primary issue revolves around whether the subsequent suits (O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007) filed by the plaintiff for specific performance are maintainable under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The defendant contended that these suits were barred because the plaintiff did not claim specific performance in the earlier suits (C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005) and did not obtain leave to do so later. Order II Rule 2(2) and (3) CPC prohibits a plaintiff from suing for any part of a claim or relief omitted in an earlier suit unless leave of the court was obtained at that time. The Supreme Court emphasized that the rule aims to prevent vexing the defendant with multiple suits based on the same cause of action.

2. Cause of Action for the Relief of Specific Performance:

The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the cause of action for the first set of suits (C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005) was the same as that for the second set (O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007). The plaintiff had argued that the cause of action for specific performance arose only after the defendant failed to execute the sale deeds despite a legal notice. However, the Court found that the plaintiff's own pleadings in the first suits indicated that the defendant had no intention to honor the agreements, thus providing a complete cause of action for specific performance at that time. The Court disagreed with the High Court's view that the cause of action for specific performance had not matured when the first suits were filed.

3. Applicability of Order II Rule 2(3) CPC When the First Suit is Pending:

The High Court had ruled that Order II Rule 2(3) CPC would only apply if the first suit had been disposed of, not when the second suit was filed during the pendency of the first suit. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the object of Order II Rule 2 CPC is to prevent multiple litigations on the same cause of action, regardless of whether the first suit is pending or disposed of. The Court emphasized that the rule's purpose is to avoid vexing the defendant with multiple suits, and this objective would not be fully served if the rule were applied only after the first suit's disposal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and striking off the plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007. The Court held that the subsequent suits were barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the cause of action for specific performance existed at the time of the first suits, and the plaintiff did not obtain leave to omit the relief of specific performance in the earlier suits. The judgment underscores the importance of including all possible claims and reliefs in the initial suit to prevent multiplicity of litigation and vexation of the defendant.