Splitting up of Cause of Action under Indian Civil Procedure

Splitting up of Cause of Action under Indian Civil Procedure

Introduction

The mandate that a litigant must bring the whole of his claim arising from a single cause of action in one proceeding is a cardinal feature of Indian procedural law. Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) crystallises this principle and proscribes the “splitting up” of a cause of action.[1] The rule seeks to protect defendants from being vexed by successive suits and to promote judicial economy by compelling plaintiffs to exhaust, in a single action, all reliefs that flow from the same bundle of facts. This article critically analyses the doctrinal foundations, statutory contours, and judicial exposition of the prohibition against splitting causes of action, with particular reference to leading Indian authorities.

Normative Framework

Order II Rule 2 consists of three inter-locking mandates: (a) a suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the “cause of action”; (b) omission or relinquishment of any portion of that claim bars a subsequent suit for the omitted part; and (c) where several reliefs arise from the same cause of action, all must be sought in one suit unless leave to omit is obtained.[1] The provision operates in tandem with Order II Rule 3 (permissive joinder of causes) and Order II Rule 4 (special rule for possession and mesne profits), thereby revealing a legislative scheme that balances finality with procedural flexibility.

Conceptual Foundations: What Constitutes a “Cause of Action”?

Indian courts have consistently adopted a fact-centric definition: it is “every fact which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain a judgment”.[4] The Privy Council in Mohammad Khalil Khan laid down the classic test—whether the same evidence will support both actions. Later decisions such as Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal[3] and Bakshi Faiz Ahmad[13] reaffirmed that identity of essential facts, not identity of legal grounds or reliefs, is determinative.

Distinct Cause of Action v. Distinct Relief

  • If the subsequent suit is predicated on additional or different facts, Order II Rule 2 is inapplicable even where parties overlap (Sidramappa v. Rajashetty[2]).
  • Mere addition of further reliefs, without introducing new foundational facts, is prohibited (Deepa Dua v. Muteneja[15]).
  • Continuing or recurring wrongs (e.g., mesne profits accruing post-suit) generate fresh causes of action and may be sued separately (Ram Karan Singh[10]; Raptakos Brett[11]).

Jurisprudential Evolution

1. Early Supreme Court Guidance: Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (1964)

The Court formulated three prerequisites for a successful bar plea: (i) identity of cause of action; (ii) entitlement to more than one relief on that cause; and (iii) omission of the later relief without court leave.[3] Crucially, the defendant must prove the pleadings of the earlier suit; inferential reasoning is insufficient.

2. Distinguishing Possessory and Declaratory Reliefs

In Sidramappa the earlier declaration-of-title suit did not bar a later suit for possession because the latter was triggered by fresh dispossession after the declaratory decree. The Court highlighted that Order II Rule 2 targets the same cause, not the same property.[2] A similar distinction underpins Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand, where recovery of sale price and later suit for possession were treated as factually discrete.[5]

3. Partition and Co-ownership Disputes

Kunjan Nair v. Narayanan Nair clarified that a declaratory suit to establish title does not preclude a subsequent partition suit; title and partition, though related, rest on different factual predicates.[6] Conversely, the Allahabad line of authority holds that a suit for dissolution of partnership or partition of joint property is joint and inseverable, mandating joinder of all co-obligors to avoid splitting.[14]

4. Res Judicata v. Order II Rule 2: The Alka Gupta Correction

In 2010 the Supreme Court castigated the High Court for conflating the two doctrines. Res judicata is premised on adjudication; Order II Rule 2 is triggered by omission irrespective of prior adjudication.[7] Both may sometimes overlap but remain conceptually distinct.

5. Procedural Economy in Rent and Eviction Matters

While Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti is primarily a constitutional decision under the Delhi Rent Control Act, it underscores that Order II Rule 2 bars arise only when the same cause of action against the same defendant is split.[8] The tenant was a new party vis-à-vis the earlier relinquishment, precluding the bar.

Determinants Applied by Indian Courts

Identity of Essential Facts

“If the same evidence will support both actions there is deemed to be but one cause of action.”[13]

Same Parties Requirement

Absence of identity of parties often defeats a bar plea (Bindo Bibi v. Ram Chandra, 1919). Nonetheless, successors-in-interest or privies are treated as the “same party” for this purpose.[23]

Continuing Causes and Accruing Rights

Claims for mesne profits, interest on delayed payments, or future damages accrue from continuing wrongs and may be litigated periodically without offending Order II Rule 2 (Ram Karan Singh[10]; Jharkhand Writ Petitions[22] illustrates contrary misuse).

Obtaining Leave of the Court

The statute permits the plaintiff to reserve reliefs with express leave (Order II Rule 2(3)); failure to secure leave is fatal. Litigants rarely invoke this safeguard, leading to adverse findings, as observed in N.AR. Thangavel[25].

Consequences of Violating the Rule

  • The subsequent suit is barred in limine; it is not a question of mis-joinder curable by amendment (Prem Lala Nahata[18]).
  • Where only a portion of relief is barred, courts may permit partial prosecution limited to distinct causes of action (Raptakos Brett[11]).
  • The bar is substantive, not merely procedural, and can be raised at any stage, including in second appeal (Chet Ram v. Sisar Dass[16]).

Interface with Arbitration and Special Statutes

The Supreme Court in Sukanya Holdings held that courts cannot bifurcate causes of action—one referable to arbitration and another to court—if doing so leads to “splitting up” of the subject-matter.[18] Similarly, Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, upheld in Kewal Singh, provides a summary procedure yet does not dilute the Order II Rule 2 bar.[8]

Emerging Issues

Recent High Court cases (Gaurav Mangla v. Rohit Mangla, 2024 Del) continue to apply the Privy Council test, but divergent views persist on:

  • Whether amendment of pleadings in the earlier suit cures subsequent splitting.
  • The extent to which constructive res judicata overlaps with Order II Rule 2 in writ jurisdiction.
  • Applicability in public law disputes where causes of action evolve with governmental inaction.

Conclusion

The prohibition against splitting causes of action remains a robust procedural doctrine anchoring the Indian civil process. It compels plaintiffs to consolidate claims, safeguards defendants from repetitive litigation, and preserves judicial resources. Judicial trends demonstrate a careful balance—strict where foundational facts are identical, liberal where new facts intervene or continuing rights accrue. Practitioners must therefore analyse the factual matrix with precision, obtain leave where necessary, and draft pleadings that capture the entire gamut of reliefs arising from a single transactional complex.

Footnotes

  1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order II Rule 2.
  2. Sidramappa v. Rajashetty, (1970) 1 SCC 186.
  3. Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810.
  4. Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian, AIR 1949 PC 78.
  5. Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand, (1995) 6 SCC 733.
  6. Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair, (2004) 3 SCC 277.
  7. Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, (2010) 10 SCC 141.
  8. Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti, (1980) 1 SCC 290.
  9. Vithal Yeshwant Jathar v. Shikandarkhan Sardesai, AIR 1963 SC 385.
  10. Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhed Ahir, 1931 SCC OnLine All 39.
  11. Raptakos Brett & Co. v. Ganesh Property, (2017) 10 SCC 643.
  12. Swamy Atmananda v. Swami Bodhananda, (2005) 3 SCC 734.
  13. Bakshi Faiz Ahmad v. Bakshi Farooq Ahmad, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K.
  14. Raja Himanshudhar Singh v. Sri Ram Hitkari, 1963 SCC OnLine All.
  15. Deepa Dua v. Tejinder Kumar Muteneja, 2013 SCC OnLine Del.
  16. Chet Ram v. Sisar Dass, 2016 SCC OnLine HP.
  17. Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, (2007) 2 SCC 551.
  18. Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh Pandya, (2003) 5 SCC 531.