CUDDALORE POWERGEN CORPORATION LTD versus M/S CHEMPLAST CUDDALORE VINYLS LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 14-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 123 : 2025 INSC 73
Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd 
v. 
M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 372-373 of 2025)
15 January 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the principles enumerated u/Ord. II r. 2 CPC would bar 
the institution of a second suit and warrant rejection of the plaint 
filed by the respondent no. 1-buyer.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. II r.2 – Suit to include 
the whole claim – Relief of permanent injunction sought 
in a previous suit, thereafter, institution of suit for specific 
performance – Applicability of Ord. II r.2 – On facts, agreement 
to sell certain property between respondent no. 1-buyer 
and respondent no. 2-seller – Multiple failed attempts by 
the respondent no. 1 to get the sale deed registered – Also 
respondent no. 1 came to know about the Government Order 
banning registration of sale deeds in the said village other 
than the appellant – Appellant along with respondent no. 2 
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 
the suit property of the respondent no. 1 – Suit for permanent 
injunction by the respondent no. 1 – Meanwhile the GO quashed 
by the High Court – Respondent no. 1’s case that during the 
first suit only he came to know about the execution of the 
registered sale deed by respondent no. 2 in favour of the 
appellant in respect of the said property – Respondent no. 1 
then filed the second suit, the suit for specific performance 
of the agreement for sale, cancellation of the sale deed and 
permanent injunction – Application by the appellant that the 
second suit hit by the bar u/Ord. II r.2 – Application allowed and 
plaint rejected in the second suit – First Appeal thereagainst 
dismissed – However, the High Court allowed the second 
* Author
124
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
appeal and restored the plaint in the second suit, holding that 
the second suit not hit by the bar u/Ord. II r.2 – Correctness:
Held: Bar under the provisions of Ord II r.2 would not stand in 
the way of the institution of the second suit by the respondent  
no. 1 – True import of the bar u/Ord. II r.2 must be that it 
operates to preclude a plaintiff from instituting a second suit, on 
the same cause of action, for a claim, any portion of a claim, 
or reliefs, which the plaintiff was entitled to avail at the time of 
filing of the first suit – Ord. II r.2 do not operate as a bar when 
the subsequent suit is based on a cause of action different 
from that on which the first suit was based and that the identity 
of the causes of action in both the suits must be the material 
consideration before the court which decide the applicability 
of this provision to a second suit filed by the plaintiff – There 
may arise a situation where the plaintiff may be entitled to a 
relief but such a relief was not available at a certain point in 
time – Such relief becomes available to him on the happening 
of a subsequent event, post the institution of the first suit, then 
the bar u/Ord. II r.2 would not stand in the way of the plaintiff 
who has instituted a subsequent suit for claiming those reliefs – 
Occurrence of that subsequent event gives rise to a fresh cause 
of action to the concerned plaintiff for claiming certain reliefs 
which he was otherwise prevented from claiming – On facts, 
mandatory bar was created by a G.O. issued by the State 
Government which disabled the respondent no. 1 from seeking 
the remedy which he was otherwise entitled to – When the order 
quashing the G.O. was passed, the rights of the respondent 
no.1 crystallized and a relief which was impossible to obtain 
earlier due to the existence of a State Government imposed ban 
was now made available to the respondent no.1 – Thus, a new 
cause of action for obtaining the relief of specific performance 
directing the respondent no. 2 to execute the sale deed in 
favour of the respondent no. 1 and for seeking the cancellation 
of the sale deed entered into between the respondent no. 2 
and the appellant had arisen – In the interests of justice, the 
decisions of the High Court relating to the GO must be held 
to have given rise to a new cause of action to the respondent 
no. 1 for the agitating the reliefs in the second suit – It cannot 
be accepted that the respondent no. 1 was fully aware of the 
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
125
Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd v. 
M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited an

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