1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Appellant plaintiff has earlier filed a suit against respondent No.1 but had not made any claim to the property of N.S. whose property has been inherited and in dispute - The suit and the subject matter of the present appeal are barred. (180) P.L.R.
  2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Court could not have granted them leave to raise a further claim for damages and mesne profits in a subsequent suit - The power of the Court to grant leave is confined to reliefs only and does not extend to allowing a splitting up of a claim - Would be entitled to damages by way of  mesne profits  for the period the company occupied the property beyond contract agreed period is a claim for mesne profits which they could not have split when the earlier suit was filed for  mesne profits  for the same period. (176) P.L.R. (Del.)
  3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Defendant denied the factum of partition and possession of plaintiff over his portion in the suit land - The subject matter in that suit was relief of injunction claimed by the plaintiff - While deciding injunction application a finding was recorded against him - Plaintiff to file separate suit claiming relief of partition of the suit property and abandoning the earlier suit - Not hit by the provisions. (182) P.L.R.
  4. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Earlier suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction - Appellant had agreed to pay the amount of cheque issued in lieu thereof, has been dishonoured - Remedy was actually to seek recovery, rightly so, suit was filed - Respondent-plaintiff cannot said to have been relinquished/omitted to claim the relief of the amount, therefore, provision of Order 2 Rule 2 cannot be attracted - As noticed above, the relief sought in the earlier suit and in the present suit is totally distinct as exercise demanded is to seek the vindication of grievance at the relevant point of time, thus, strictly speaking the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 cannot pressed into service.  (183) P.L.R.
  5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - It means that if the plaintiff files a suit relinquishing or omitting part of the claim, he could not afterward sue in respect of the portion so omitted - When the suit for permanent injunction was filed, the plaintiff seek simple injunction and he had the hope that defendant No.1 will perform his part of the agreement - Since, the pleadings of the first suit are not on file, therefore, it cannot be said that the relief for specific performance could have been availed when first suit was filed and therefore the bar of under Order II, Rule 2 CPC is attracted.  (180) P.L.R.
  6. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Leaves no manner of doubt that a party, which has omitted to claim a relief owing to accrual of cause of action, cannot be permitted to seek the same subsequently - Plaintiff was not prevented to seek the specific performance in the year 1996 when the suit for permanent injunction was filed - It is not a case where the date for execution and registration of the sale deed had not reached - The plaintiff was prevented from seeking the specific performance as he would have faced the wrath that the suit was prematurely instituted.  (180) P.L.R.
  7. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Plaintiff could well have sought amendment of the first suit itself to incorporate the relief of possession, instead of nomenclaturing the same as relief of injunction - However, the plaintiffs preferred to file the second suit - Pertinently, the second suit also raised the claim for damages for the period post the filing of the suit - The cause of action in respect whereof obviously arose after the filing of the first suit - Consequently, in respect of the said relief of damages, in any event, Order II Rule 2 CPC does not come into play - The objective behind Order II Rule 2 CPC is that the defendant should not be vexed twice, and the plaintiff should claim the entire relief that he could claim in the first suit itself - In the facts of this case, it cannot be said that objective has been defeated by the entertainment of the second suit - In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this submission that the second suit for possession was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. (181) P.L.R. (Del.)
  8. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Plaintiff has not claimed any damages for demolition of wall towards the cost of construction material in the said suit - Even no such claim was lodged in appeal filed against the said judgment - Having failed to claim such benefit in the previously instituted suit, the claim of the plaintiff would be hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil  procedure. (175) P.L.R.
  9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Present suit has been filed seeking the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Since the declaration is an independent right, the petitioner can agitate the same in accordance with law which will ultimately be decided keeping in view the pleadings and evidence led by the respective parties. (174) P.L.R.
  10. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Provision will operate only to a subsequent suit which seeks for a particular relief that must have been taken in the previous suit itself - If the suit were to contain one relief and yet another relief is sought to be brought through an amendment, the question of applying Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not arise at all. (174) P.L.R.
  11. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Res judicata could be a bar in case where the suit between the party in respect of the same subject matter shall have a point for an adjudication which was directly and substantially an issue in the previous suit and decided finally - There was no issue regarding whether the property belonged to the defendant but the issue was confined to examination of the plaintiff whether the property was ancestral or not.(181) P.L.R.
  12. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Suit for damages - Again the damages for obstruction of water was a subject matter of suit for injunction, which was initially dismissed, but decreed in appeal - Any consequence of damage on account of obstruction of water had to be claimed in the said suit in terms of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the cause of action was available in the said suit. (175) P.L.R.
  13. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2 - Whereas different causes of action emerging from a wrong need not be included in one suit, all claims emerging from a cause of action have to be included in one suit and a second suit for a claim on a cause of action would be barred unless leave of the Court is obtained the two were not told that the words `any portion of his claim' in sub-Rule (2) of Order 2 refers not only to the physical quantum claimed by a plaintiff but also to the interest claimed and thus where a plaintiff who is entitled to a larger interest in the property claims only a smaller interest therein, the bar under the Rule would apply. (176) P.L.R. (Del.)
  14. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 2(2) - There is no gainsaying that the plaintiffs were well within their rights to file the second suit short of expiry of the period fixed for execution of the sale deed - When the second suit was filed the first suit was pending, which was later ordered to be dismissed as  withdrawn by discovery and coming to learn that she had sold the suit property onward despite the injunction issued against her  restraining her from alienating the property to third parties. (176) P.L.R.
  15. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 3 - If a plaintiff omits, without the leave of the Court, to sue for any of the reliefs, which he is entitled to claim in respect of the cause of action, he shall not afterwards sue for the relief so omitted by him but as per Order 2 (3) CPC, where a plaintiff is entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action but omits to ask for some of them, he shall not, except with the permission of the Court, sue again for them.     (180) P.L.R.
  16. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule 6-A, Order 8 Rule 6G - If the defendants had not themselves preferred an appeal against the dismissal of the counter claim, they would be barred by principle of resjudicata in taking up such a plea - The counter claim is referred to under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code as in the nature of a plaint and Order 8 Rule 6G of the Code laid lays that rules relating to written statement will apply.Held, that if the written contains a counter claim, the plaintiffs are bound to file a reply, which will be in the nature of written statement and if the plaintiffs even make a default to file reply, the defendants would have the benefit in the same way as the plaintiffs would have, if in a normal suit, the defendants would remain ex-parte. All the trapping of pleadings as plaintiffs and defendants would stand reversed in case of counter claim and consequently, if a counter claim is dismissed, the finding that the defendants had not proved title by adverse possession, it would obtain finality and the defendants would be even barred from setting up such a claim in the written statement without preferring an appeal against the judgment which dismissed their counter claim.(181) P.L.R.
  17. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  2, Rule or sub-clause 3 - Omission to sue for one of the reliefs which sub-rule 3 indicates is that which a person is entitled to ask in the very same suit - If they were filing a suit for injunction on an assertion that they were in possession and brought another suit on a plea that the defendants are in possession having trespassed in their property and put up construction, there was no question of Order 2 Rule 2 or sub clause 3 applying in such a case - If the plaintiffs' suit for injunction itself has been dismissed, there was no scope for a similar result to follow also in a suit for recovery of possession.(181) P.L.R. 


Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.