S. VALLIAMMAI & OTHERS versus S. RAMANATHAN & ANOTHER

Citation: [2026] 5 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 16-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 238 : 2026 INSC 372
S. Valliammai & Others 
v. 
S. Ramanathan & Another
(Civil Appeal No. 3624 of 2024)
16 April 2026
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Correctness or otherwise of the impugned order granting rejection 
of the plaint.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 – 
Application of Or.II r.2 not a ground for rejection of plaint  
u/Or.VII r.11(d) – Original owner and his wife-appellant No.1 
herein filed the first suit against defendant No.1-son, seeking 
inter alia permanent injunction – After the death of the original 
owner, Appellants herein (his wife and daughters) filed 
the second suit – Respondent-defendants filed application  
u/Or.VII r.11 in the second suit seeking rejection of the plaint 
contending that the said suit was barred u/Or.II r.2 – Application 
dismissed by trial court holding inter alia that the second 
suit was not barred on account of Or.II r.2 as the causes of 
action and properties involved in the two suits were distinct 
and separate – Order set aside by High Court by analysing 
the averments in the first suit in juxtaposition with the second 
suit and holding that the cause of action for both the suits 
was one and the same and the suit was barred u/Or.II r.2 – 
Revision petition filed by the defendants was allowed; plaint 
was rejected u/Or.VII r.11– Interference with:
Held: Order of High Court set aside – Plea u/Or.II r.2 cannot be a 
basis or a ground for rejection of the plaint – In a case where Or.II 
r.2 applies, there is no legal bar to filing a suit but the reliefs sought 
for or the claims made therein cannot be granted if the conditions 
mentioned therein apply – For arriving at such a conclusion, there 
has to be evidence let in in order to determine whether the provision 
of Or.II r.2 would apply to the suit or not – On the other hand, in the 
* Author
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 
239
S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another
case of Or.VII r.11(d), if there is express or implied bar for filing of 
a suit under any law then on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it 
has to be rejected – The suit need not proceed to record evidence 
on merits but only to the extent where evidence is necessary to be 
recorded for the purpose of rejection of the plaint such as on the 
ground of the suit being bit by law of limitation or on the principle 
of res judicata – Thus, the bar created by any law to the filing of 
a suit is different from a plaintiff suing for certain claims or reliefs 
which he could not have claimed or sued having regard to Or.II 
r.2 – Therefore, the application of Or.II r.2 cannot be construed to be 
a ground for rejection of the plaint u/Or.VII r.11(d) – In the present 
case, the approach of the High Court in analysing the averments 
made in the second suit as if it is evidence, in juxtaposition with 
the averments made in the first suit was improper – Order of 
the trial court in the second suit restored along with the plaint.  
[Paras 5.9, 5.21, 8.1, 9]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 – Two 
suits, if distinct and separate – Distinctions to be analysed 
while analysing the plaints in the first/former suit and a 
subsequent suit:
Held: On a conjoint reading of Or.II r.2 with Or.VII r.11(d), it emerges 
that the plea under Or.II r.2 cannot be a basis or a ground for 
rejection of the plaint – It is for the defendant to establish by way 
of evidence, the bar of the subsequent suit u Or.II r.2 filed by the 
very same plaintiff – In such an event, on a comparative analysis 
of the plaint filed in the first suit and the plaint filed in the second 
suit, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the second suit 
was filed on an identical cause of action which led to the filing of 
the first suit and there was an omission to make the claim or to 
reserve the reliefs to be claimed in the first suit in a subsequent 
suit, then the bar u/Or.II r.2 would apply to the subsequent suit 
or the second suit – Then the claims or reliefs not maintainable 
would be rejected as the plaintiff could not have sued for those 
reliefs by filing a second suit, although technically, the filing of 
such a suit was not barred by any law – On the other hand, if the 
cause of action for filing the second suit is totally distinct from the 
cause of action from filing the first suit and the reliefs claimed are 
distinct, subject-matter of the suits are different and if the parties 
to the su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.