COFFEE BOARD versus M/S. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 09-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 7 S.C.R. 461 
COFFEE BOARD 
v. 
M/S. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5527 of 2014) 
MAY 9, 2014. 
[CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
c 
0.2, r.2 -
Suit to include the whole claim - Bar to 
subsequent suit on same cause of action - Held: 0.2, r.2 
requires, if different reliefs and claims arise out of the same 
cause of action then the plaintiff must place all his claims 
before the court in one suit and cannot omit one of the reliefs 
D 
or claims except without the leave of the court - Order 2 r.2 
bars a plaintiff from omitting one part of claim and raising the 
same in a subsequent suit -
Bar under 0. 2 r.2 must be 
specifically pleaded by· defendant in the suit and trial court 
should specifically frame a specific issue in that regard 
E 
wherein the pleading in the earlier suit must be examined and 
F 
the plaintiff is given an opportunity to demonstrate that the 
cause of action in the subsequent suit is different - In the 
instant case, de facto the parties are the same in both the 
suits - In the written statement filed in the subsequent suit the 
defendant-appellant has specifically pleaded that the suit was 
barred under 0. 2, r. 2 of the CPC -
The trial court also 
specifically framed the issue on this point - As regards the 
cause of action in the subsequent suit and the relief claimed 
therein, in both the suits the fact required to be proved by the 
respondent-plaintiff, to succeed in its claims was that on 
G 
account of the failure of the appellant-defendant to provide the 
required /CO stamps as assured by it, the respondent had to 
suffer losses - Suits should have been merged and the two 
461 
H 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A reliefs, first being the losses due to delayed shipment and 
second being the costs and losses arising due to the recall 
of the shipment, could have been claimed in a single suit 
when the cause of action was the same in both suits -
Therefore, trial court correctly held that subsequent suit was 
B barred under 0. 2, r.2 - Judgment and order of High Court is 
set aside and that of trial court upheld. 
The respondent purchased coffee at the export 
auction, and shipped 230.4 tonnes of coffee to USA and 
Germany i.e. the members of International Coffee 
C Organization (ICO), on 1st, 2nd and 3rd September, 1982 
without valid ICO certificate of origin. On 22.9.1982, the 
respondent wrote to the appellant Board requesting for 
ICO stamps for export of 230.4 tonnes of coffee and on 
29.9.1982, the respondent wrote to the appellant Board 
D for issue of necessary permit/authority to re-import 230.4 
tonnes of coffee into India. The appellant Board issued 
a show cause notice to the respondent alleging that the 
respondent committed breach of terms of ICO Agreement 
by making false statement. The respondent filed two 
E suits against the appellant Board in the Court of City Civil 
Judge, i.e. O.S. No.3150 of 1985 praying for a decree of 
Rs.5,32,012.31 p. with interest at the rate of 19% per 
annum and costs of the suit and O.S. No. 4763 of 1986 
praying for a decree of Rs.11,70,446.39 p. with interest at 
F the rate of 19% per annum and costs of the suit. The trial 
court decreed O.S. No.3150 of 1985 with costs and 
interest at 6% per annum. However, O.S. No. 4763 of 1986 
was dismissed. The appellant Board filed R.F.A. No.901 
of 2002; whereas the respondent filed R.F.A. No.1033 of 
G 2005 before the High Court, which partly allowed the 
appeal filed by the respondent and partly decreed O.S. 
No. 4763 of 1986 filed by-U. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1. From a plain reading of 0. 2, r. 2 CPC, it 
COFFEE BOARD v. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 463 
·emerges that if different reliefs and claims arise out of the 
A 
same cause of action then the plaintiff must place all his 
claims before the court in one suit and cannot omit one 
of th~ reliefs or. claims except without the leave of the 
court. Order 2 r.2 bars a plaintiff from omitting one part 
of claim and raising the same in a subsequent suit. The 
B 
bar of 0. 2, r. 2 comes into operation where the cause of 
action on which the previous suit was filed, forms the 
foundation of the subsequent suit; and when the plaintiff 
could have claimed the relief sought in the subsequent 
suit, in the earlier suit; and both the suits are between the c 
same parties:· Furthermore, the bar under 0. 2 r.2 must be 
specifically pleaded by 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.