TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment 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. - CIVIL APPEAL No. 6372 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2012 - P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOI, JJ. JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted. 2. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Madras by which the High Court has refused to interdict the proceedings registered and numbered as OS Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 pending in the Court of the learned District ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elapsed when C.S. No.831 and 833 of 2005 were instituted and the plaintiff was under the bonafide belief that the defendants would perform the agreement the relief of specific performance was not claimed in the aforesaid suits. However, as inspite of a legal notice issued to the defendants on 24.2.2006, the sale deeds had not been executed by the defendant the latter suits i.e. O.S.Nos 202 and 203 were instituted. 5. While the matter was so situated the defendant in both the suits i.e. the present petitioner, moved the Madras High Court by filing two separate applications under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off the plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 on the ground that the provisions contained in Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short the CPC ) is a bar to the maintainability of both the suits. Before the High Court the defendant had contended that the cause of action for both sets of suits were the same, namely, the refusal or reluctance of the defendant to execute the sale deeds in terms of the agreements dated 27.7.2005. Therefore, at the time of filing of the first set of suits i.e. C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, it was open for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent. 8. The necessary discussions that will have to follow may be initiated by extracting the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC: ORDER II 2. Suit to include the whole claim. (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. (2) Relinquishment of part of claim-Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs-A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Explanation-For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and for good and sufficient reasons. The situations where the bar under Order II Rule 2 (2) and (3) will be attracted have been enumerated in a long line of decisions spread over a century now. Though each of the aforesaid decisions contain a clear and precise narration of the principles of law arrived at after a detailed analysis, the principles laid down in the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal [AIR 1964 SC 1810] may be usefully recalled below: In order that a plea of a bar under O. 2. r. 2(3), Civil Procedure Code should succeed the defendant who raises the plea must make out (1) 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 fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et of suits is one and the same. Depending on such answer as the Court may offer the rights of the parties will follow. 13. A reading of the plaints filed in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 show clear averments to the effect that after execution of the agreements of sale dated 27.7.2005 the plaintiff received a letter dated 1.8.2005 from the defendant conveying the information that the Central Excise Department was contemplating issuance of a notice restraining alienation of the property. The advance amounts paid by the plaintiff to the defendant by cheques were also returned. According to the plaintiff it was surprised by the aforesaid stand of the defendant who had earlier represented that it had clear and marketable title to the property. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is stated that the encumbrance certificate dated 22.8.2005 made available to the plaintiff did not inspire confidence of the plaintiff as the same contained an entry dated 1.10.2004. The plaintiff, therefore, seriously doubted the claim made by the defendant regarding the proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Department. In the aforesaid paragraph of the plaint it was averred by the plaintiff that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C 315]. In the aforesaid case this Court has taken the view that whether a premature suit is required to be entertained or not is a question of discretion and unless there is a mandatory bar created by a statute which disables the plaintiff from filing the suit on or before a particular date or the occurrence of a particular event , the Court must weigh and balance the several competing factors that are required to be considered including the question as to whether any useful purpose would be served by dismissing the suit as premature as the same would entitle the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on a subsequent date. We may usefully add in this connection that there is no provision in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 requiring a plaintiff claiming the relief of specific performance to wait for expiry of the due date for performance of the agreement in a situation where the defendant may have made his intentions clear by his overt acts. 16. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had considered, and very rightly, to be bound to follow an earlier Division Bench order in the case of R.Vimalchand and M.Ratanchand v. Ramalingam, T.Srinivasalu T. Venkatesaperumal (supra) holding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
