Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1866 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of suit - Principles of constructive res judicata - suit barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - allegation made by the Respondents in the suit was that the land was a joint family ancestral property and he had sold it for immoral purposes and in a manner prejudicial to the interest of joint family - HELD THAT:- The High Court holds that all successive claims, arising under the same obligation, shall be deemed to constitute one cause of action. It further finds that the crux of the matter is, there are two alienations of separate areas of the land on different dates, and although they are in favour of the same parties, it would give rise to more than one cause of action. It was further found that by restricting to first suit to the first alienation, it could not be found that Plaintiff has split-up the claims or split-up the remedies. The execution of the second sale deed in favour of the same party gives rise to distinctive and separate cause of action. The High Court further proceeds to refer to the illustrations in Order II Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure - the High Court proceeds to take a case where A owns two houses and he let them to B. A suit is filed in respect of arrears of rent in respect of one house, though arrears were there in respect of the other house also. The High Court takes the view that it is the choice of the Plaintiff either to unite or not to unite both the causes of action and the second suit would not be barred. Order II Rule 2(1) provides that a Plaintiff is to include the whole of the claim, which he is entitled to make, in respect of the cause of action. However, it is open to him to relinquish any portion of the claim. Order II Rule 2 provides for the consequences of relinquishment of a part of a claim and also the consequences of omitting a part of the claim. It declares that if a Plaintiff omits to sue or relinquishes intentionally any portion of his claim, he shall be barred from suing on that portion so omitted or relinquished. Order II Rule 2(3), however, deals with the effect of omission to sue for all or any of the reliefs in respect of the same cause of action. The consequences of such omission will be to preclude Plaintiff from suing for any relief which is so omitted. The only exception is when he obtains leave of the Court - in respect of omission to include a part of the claim or relinquishing a part of the claim flowing from a cause of action, the result is that the Plaintiff is totally barred from instituting a suit later in respect of the claim so omitted or relinquished. It is undoubtedly true that the law does not compel a litigant to combine one or more causes of action in a suit. It is open to a Plaintiff, if he so wishes, however to combine more than one cause of action against same parties in one suit. However, it is undoubtedly true that the embargo in Order II Rule 2 will arise only if the claim, which is omitted or relinquished and the reliefs which are omitted and not claimed, arise from one cause of action. If there is more than one cause of action, Order II Rule 2 will not apply. It is undoubtedly also true that Order II Rule 2 manifests a technical Rule as it has the effect of posing an obstacle in the path of a litigant ventilating his grievance in the Courts. That on the same cause of action, the Plaintiffs having omitted to sue in respect of the sale deed in question, we would think that bar Under Order II Rule 2 would apply - Appeal allowed.
|