M/S VIRGO INDUSTRIES (ENG.) P.LTD. versus M/S.VENTURETECH SOLUTIONS P.LTD.

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 07-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2012] 7 S.C.R. 933 
M/S VIRGO INDUSTRIES (ENG.) P.LTD. 
v. 
M/S.VENTURETECH SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6372 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 
(P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
Or II, r. 2 - Two suits on same cause of action - Bar u/Or II, c 
r. 2 - Object - Applicability - Held: Or. II r. 2 seeks to avoid 
multiplicity of litigations on same cause of action - The Rule 
engrafts a laudable principle that discourages/prohibits vexing 
the defendant again and again by multiple suits except in a 
situation where one of the several reliefs, though available to 
0 
a plaintiff, may not have been claimed for a good reason - A 
later suit for such relief is contemplated only with the leave of 
the Court, granted upon due satisfaction and for good and 
sufficient reasons - The cardinal requirement for application 
of the provisions contained in Or. II r.2(2) and (3) is that the 
E 
cause of action in the later suit must be the same as in the 
first suit. 
Or II, r. 2 - Applicability - Based upon an agreement to 
sale entered into between the parties, respondent filed suit for 
permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from 
F 
alienating, encumbering or dealing with the suit property to 
any party other than the plaintiff - During pendency of the said 
suit, respondent filed suit for specific performance of the 
agreement to sale - Maintainability of the subsequent suit -
Held: The cause of action for both suits were the same - The 
G 
foundation for the relief of permanent injunction claimed in 
the earlier suit furnished a complete cause of action to the 
plaintiff-respondent to also sue for the relief of specific 
performance - Yet, the relief of specific performance was 
933 
H 
934 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A omitted and no leave in this regard was obtained or granted 
by the Court - For claiming the relief of specific performance, 
the plaintiff-respondent was not required to wait for expiry of 
the due date for performance of the agreement to sale in a 
situation where the defendant-appellant made his intentions 
B clear by his overt acts - Or.II, r.2 would apply in both the 
situations- when the earlier suit was disposed off and also 
when the subsequent suit was filed during pendency of the 
earlier suit - Consequently, subsequent suit filed by 
respondent for specific performance was barred under the 
c provisions of Or.II, r.2 - Plaint in the subsequent suit filed by 
respondent accordingly struck off. 
Words and Phrases - "cause of action" - Meaning of 
On 28.8.2005 and 9.9.2005, the respondent had 
D instituted a set of two suits before the High Court seeking 
a decree of permanent injunction restraining the 
defendant-appellant from alienating, encumbering or 
dealing with the praint schedule properties to any other 
third party other than the plaintiff-respondent. The said 
E relief was claimed on the basis of two agreements of sale 
entered into by the respondent and the appellant both on 
27.7.2005 in respect of two different parcels of immovable 
property. 
Subsequently, on 29.5.2007, the respondent filed two 
F suits for specific performance of the said agreements of 
sale in the Court of the District Judge seeking a decree 
against the appellant for execution and registration of the 
sale deeds in respect of the same property and for 
delivery of possession thereof to the respondent. While 
G the matter was so situated, the appellant moved the High 
Court by filing two separate applications under Article 227 
of the Constitution to strike off the plaints in the 
subsequent set of suits on the ground that the 
provisions contained in Order II Rule 2, CPC was a bar 
H 
VIRGO INDUSTRIES (ENG.) P.LTD. v. VENTURETECH 935 
SOLUTIONS P.LTD. 
to the maintainability of both the subsequent suits. A 
A 
Single Judge of the High Court held that the provisions 
of Order II Rule 2 (3), CPC were not attracted to render 
the subsequent suits filed by the respondent non-
maintainable and, therefore, the instant appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Order II Rule 1, CPC requires every suit 
B 
to include the whole of the claim to which the plaintiff is 
entitled in respect of any particular cause of action. 
However, the plaintiff has an option to relinquish 1my part 
C 
of his claim if he chooses to do so. Order II Rule 2 
contemplates a situation where a plaintiff omits to sue or 
intentionally relinquishes any portion of the c

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