LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA versus GRACURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 617 STATE BANK OF INDIA v. GRACURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10531-10532 of 2013) NOVEMBER 22, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. II, r. 2 - Applicability of- In respect of two suits filed by the respondent- Held: The object of Or.II, r.2 is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and C not to vex the parties over and again in a litigative process - In the instant case, the facts on the basis of which subsequent suit was filed, existed on the date on which the earlier suit was filed - No fresh cause of action arose in between the first suit and the second suit - When the first suit for recovery of dues D was filed for the alleged relief, damages sought for in the subsequent suit could have also been sought for - Respondent not entitled to split the cause of action into parts by filing separate suits - It omitted certain reliefs which were available to it at the time of filing of the first suit and after E having relinquished the same, it could not have filed a separate suit. Two suits were filed by the respondent, one in the Original side of the High Court and another before the District Court. Original Suit No.1145 of 2003 w~s filed by F the respondent on 15.05.2003 for recovery of an amount of Rs.44,30,994 against the appellant bank and its officers towards the amount of Letter of Credit issued by Credit Du Nord, Paris (CON) and towards interest for the delay in receipt of payment from BNP - Paribas S.A., lvry-Sur- G Seine (BNP) with cost pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. Suit No.288103104 of 2003 was also filed by the respondent on 21.05.2003 claiming damages of Rs.3,09,0001- with cost and pendente lite and future 617 H 618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A il"iterest @ 18% per annum against the bank and its officers for withdrawing credit facility on 23.03.2002. The bank and its officers filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 before the 8 District Court for rejection of the plaint in the suit for damages on the ground that the same was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The District Court held that the cause of action in both the suits was same and the relief sought for in Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 could C have been claimed by the plaintiff in the Suit No.1145 of 2003 filed before the High Court. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 was, therefore, allowed, holding that the latter suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2, CPC and plaint was accordingly rejected. On appeal by the respondent, the High Court set aside the order of the D District Court, and therefore the instant appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Order 2 Rule 2, CPC requir~s the unity of E all claims based on the same cause of action in one suit, it does not contemplate unity of distinct and separate cause of action. If a plaintiff is entitled to seek reliefs against the defendant in respect of the same cause of action, the plaintiff cannot split up the claim so as to omit one part to the claim and sue for the other. If the cause F of action is same, the plaintiff has to place all his claims before the Court in one suit, as Order 2 Rule 2, CPC is based on the cardinal principle that defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause. [Paras 11, 12) [625· G A-C] 1.2. In the instant case, it is clear that the facts on the basis of which subsequent suit was filed, existed on the date on which the earlier suit was filed. The earlier suit was filed on 15.03.2003 and subsequent suit was filed on H 21.05.2003. No fresh cause of action arose in between the STATE BANK OF INDIA v. GRACURE 619 PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. first suit and the second suit. The closure of account was A intimated on 20.03.2002 'due to the alleged fault of the respondent in not 'regularizing their accounts i.e. after non-receipt of payment of LC, the account became irregular. When the first suit for recovery of dues was filed Le. on 15.03.2001 for alleged relief, damages sought for B in the subsequent suit could have also been sought for. . . Order 2 Rule 2 provides that every suit shall include .the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the same cause of action. Respondent is not entitled to split the cause of action into parts by filing c separate suits .. The respondent had omitted certain reliefs
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.