Analysis of Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

An Exposition of Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Judicial Dicta and Procedural Imperatives in Indian Law

Introduction

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) serves as the foundational procedural law governing civil litigation in India. Within its framework, Order 2 Rule 2 stands as a critical provision aimed at preventing the multiplicity of suits and ensuring that a defendant is not vexed repeatedly for the same cause of action. Specifically, Order 2 Rule 2(3) addresses the scenario where a plaintiff, being entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action, omits to sue for all such reliefs. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC, drawing upon seminal judicial pronouncements and established legal principles in India. It examines the scope, objective, conditions for applicability, and the procedural nuances associated with this sub-rule, particularly focusing on the concept of "cause of action" and the "leave of the Court" exception.

The Legislative Mandate of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, in its entirety, embodies the principle that a plaintiff must include the whole of the claim to which they are entitled in respect of a cause of action in one suit. The rule is structured to ensure comprehensiveness and finality in litigation arising from a single cause of action.

Order 2 Rule 2(1) mandates that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action, but allows the plaintiff to relinquish any portion of their claim to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court.[16]

Order 2 Rule 2(2) provides the consequence for such omission or relinquishment: if a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of their claim, they shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.[16]

The overarching object of Order 2 Rule 2, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in State Bank Of India v. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Limited, is "to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and not to vex the parties over and again in a litigative process."[10] This laudable object serves a larger public purpose by not burdening the court with repeated suits.[10] The Madras High Court in N. Ravindran v. V. Ramachandran reiterated that the rule is founded on the principle that a person shall not be vexed twice for one and the same cause of action and is directed at securing exhaustion of the relief in respect of a cause of action.[14]

Deciphering Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC

Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC specifically addresses the omission of reliefs. It states:

"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."

The critical elements of this sub-rule are:

  1. The plaintiff must be entitled to more than one relief.
  2. These multiple reliefs must arise from the "same cause of action."
  3. The plaintiff omits to sue for one or more of these reliefs.
  4. Such omission is without the "leave of the Court."

The consequence of such an omission, without leave, is a bar on subsequently suing for the omitted relief(s). The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar And Another v. Zalak Singh And Others, citing Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, clearly distinguished between Order 2 Rule 2(2) (omission of a portion of a claim) and Order 2 Rule 2(3) (omission of one of several reliefs on the same cause of action).[16]

Judicial Interpretation and Application

Indian courts have extensively interpreted Order 2 Rule 2(3), laying down principles for its application.

1. The "Same Cause of Action" Conundrum

The linchpin for the applicability of Order 2 Rule 2(3) is the identity of the cause of action in the earlier and subsequent suits. If the causes of action are distinct, the bar does not apply.[15], [28] The Privy Council in Mohammad Khalil Khan And Others v. Mahbub Ali Mian And Others laid down the test: "whether the claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation for the former suit."[8], [15] A cause of action means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, to support their right to the judgment.[8], [15]

Several landmark cases illustrate this:

  • In Deva Ram And Another v. Ishwar Chand And Another, a suit for recovery of sale price was held to have a different cause of action from a subsequent suit for possession of land based on ownership.[1]
  • Similarly, in Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair And Others, a suit for declaration of title was distinct from a suit for recovery of possession.[2]
  • The Supreme Court in State Of Maharashtra And Another v. National Construction Company, Bombay And Another held that a suit to enforce a bank guarantee and a suit for damages for breach of the principal contract arose from different causes of action.[9]
  • In Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, a suit for recovery of balance sale consideration and a suit for rendition of accounts of a dissolved partnership were found to be based on distinct causes of action.[4] The Court emphasized that for Order 2 Rule 2, "all that is required to be seen is whether the reliefs claimed in both suits arose from the same cause of action."[19]
  • Conversely, in Coffee Board v. Ramesh Exports Private Limited, two suits claiming damages arising from the Coffee Board's alleged failure to supply ICO stamps were held to stem from the same cause of action, barring the second suit for reliefs that could have been claimed in the first.[7]
  • The Delhi High Court in Suresh Jain v. Sunil Kumar observed that though the transaction may be the same, the causes of action may be different. If the evidence to support the two claims is different, then the causes of action are also different.[18]

The Supreme Court in Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company And Another dealt with a continuing cause of action (passing off), holding that every instance of passing off gives rise to a fresh cause of action, and thus Order 2 Rule 2(3) may not bar a subsequent suit for a fresh act of passing off.[22] However, this principle is nuanced; if the subsequent suit is based on the same acts of infringement or passing off that were the subject of the first suit, and a relief available then was omitted, the bar could apply.

2. Omission of Relief and the Consequent Bar

If the cause of action is indeed the same, and the plaintiff was entitled to multiple reliefs but omitted one or more without court leave, Order 2 Rule 2(3) acts as a bar to a subsequent suit for the omitted relief. The Supreme Court in Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited robustly affirmed this principle, holding that the bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) applies even if the first suit is still pending when the second suit (for the omitted relief) is filed.[6], [27] The Court reasoned that the object of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is to avoid multiplicity of litigations on the same cause of action, and this object would not be fully subserved by holding that the bar applies only if the first suit is disposed of.[6], [27]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Inderjit Singh Bawa v. Dr. Vani Sharma, quoting the Supreme Court, reiterated the salutary principle that "a defendant or defendants should not be vexed time and again for the same cause by splitting the claim and the reliefs."[17] The plaintiff must claim the whole relief or entire bundle of reliefs available in respect of that very same cause of action.[17], [19]

The Madras High Court in N. Ravindran v. V. Ramachandran outlined conditions for applicability: (i) previous and second suit must arise out of the same cause of action; (ii) both suits must be between the same parties; and (iii) the earlier suit must have been decided on merits.[14] However, the third condition regarding the earlier suit being "decided on merits" for the bar on omitted *reliefs* under O2R2(3) needs to be viewed in light of the Supreme Court's decision in *Virgo Industries*, which suggests that pendency of the first suit is sufficient for the bar to operate against a subsequent suit for an omitted relief.[6] The bar under Order 2 Rule 2 is against suing for the omitted portion or relief, not necessarily against the continuation of the first suit itself.

3. The "Leave of the Court" Exception

Order 2 Rule 2(3) provides an exception to the bar if the plaintiff omits a relief "with the leave of the Court." This implies that a plaintiff, foreseeing the need to sue for a particular relief later, can seek permission from the court in the first instance to reserve their right to do so. The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar acknowledged this exception.[16]

However, obtaining such leave is not a matter of right. In Ramajayam v. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd., the Madras High Court, referencing a Supreme Court decision, noted that a plaintiff cannot seek relief under Order 2 Rule 2(3) (i.e., leave to omit a relief) as a matter of right.[29] The court exercises judicial discretion in granting such leave, presumably based on the facts and circumstances justifying such an omission and subsequent pursuit.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kasarapu Sujatha And Another v. Veera Velli Veera Somaiah discussed a situation where an earlier suit was withdrawn without permission to file a fresh suit, which is more directly governed by Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. However, it touches upon the necessity of court sanction for procedural choices that might lead to subsequent litigation.[20] If leave is not sought at the time of filing the first suit (or before its disposal, depending on the specific relief and evolving cause of action), the bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) becomes operative.

4. Pleading and Proving the Bar

The onus of establishing that a subsequent suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC lies on the defendant. The Supreme Court in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal laid down a crucial procedural requirement: for a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 to succeed, the defendant must produce the pleadings of the previous suit to enable the court to ascertain whether the causes of action in the two suits are identical.[5] Without the pleadings of the former suit, the court cannot infer the identity of the cause of action.[5]

The Supreme Court in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta also emphasized that bars like Order 2 Rule 2 must be specifically pleaded by the defendant, and an issue framed thereon, for the suit to be dismissed on that ground.[4]

The substantive nature of this provision was highlighted in B.SANTOSHAMMA. v. D.SARALA., where it was argued that the mandate of Order 2 Rule 2 is a provision of substantive nature, based on legislative policy, and not merely technical.[11]

5. Distinction from Res Judicata

It is important to distinguish Order 2 Rule 2 from the doctrine of res judicata (Section 11 CPC). While both aim to prevent multiplicity of litigation, their scope and application differ. Res judicata bars the trial of a suit or an issue which has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit and has been finally decided. Order 2 Rule 2, on the other hand, bars a suit for a claim or relief that was omitted in a former suit based on the same cause of action, irrespective of whether the former suit was finally decided on all aspects, as clarified in Virgo Industries regarding omitted reliefs.[6] The Supreme Court in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta[4] and Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand[1] has elaborated on this distinction.

6. Interaction with Other Provisions

In S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank Of Mysore And Others, the Supreme Court considered the interplay of Order 2 Rule 2 with Order 34 Rule 14 CPC. It was held that a suit for sale in enforcement of a mortgage under Order 34 Rule 14 is permissible even if a money decree for the loan amount had been obtained earlier, as the causes of action are distinct.[3] This illustrates that specific statutory provisions can carve out exceptions or clarifications to the general rule under Order 2 Rule 2.

Conclusion

Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, plays a vital role in ensuring the efficiency and integrity of the civil justice system in India. Its mandate that a plaintiff must sue for all reliefs available in respect of the same cause of action in a single suit, unless leave of the court is obtained to omit a relief, is a cornerstone of procedural discipline. The judiciary, through a catena of decisions, has clarified that the crux of this provision lies in the "sameness" of the cause of action. Where the causes of action are distinct, the bar does not operate. The objective is clear: to prevent defendants from being vexed multiple times for the same grievance and to avoid burdening the courts with fragmented litigation. Litigants and legal practitioners must meticulously assess the available reliefs arising from a cause of action and make informed decisions, seeking leave of the court where necessary, to avoid the stringent consequences of this rule. The principles laid down in cases like Mohammad Khalil Khan, Gurbux Singh, Virgo Industries, and Alka Gupta continue to guide the application of this significant procedural safeguard.

References