VURIMI PULLARAO S/O SATYANARAYANA versus VEMARI VYANKATA RADHARANI W/O DHANKOTESHWARRAO & ANR

Citation: [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1125 · Decided: 27-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1125
VURIMI PULLARAO S/O SATYANARAYANA
v.
VEMARI VYANKATA RADHARANI W/O
DHANKOTESHWARRAO & ANR
(Civil Appeal No. 9065 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 27, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Order 2 Rule 2 – Relinquishment of part of claim – Bar under
Order 2 Rule 2 – When attracted – On facts, plaintiff–appellant
filed suit for injunction restraining defendant–respondent from
obstructing their possession – Six months later, plaintiff filed suit
for specific performance of agreement to sell the property –
Dismissal of earlier suit for injunction for default –  Trial court
dismissed the suit for specific performance holding that the plaintiff
had omitted to sue for specific performance of the agreement
although the cause of action had accrued in favour of the plaintiff
at the time when the earlier suit for injunction was instituted; and
that the plaintiff had failed to seek the leave of the Court, when the
suit for injunction was instituted, to file a subsequent suit on the
same cause of action seeking performance – Concurrent findings
by the courts below that the suit is barred under order 2 rule 2 –
Interference with – Held: In order to attract the applicability of the
bar enunciated under Order 2 Rule 2, the cause of action on which
the subsequent claim is founded ought to have arisen to the plaintiff
when enforcement of the first claim was sought before the Court –
In the instant case, the earlier suit for injunction contained a recital
of the agreement to sell; the price fixed; the payment of earnest
money; the demand for performance and the failure of the defendant
to perform the contract – Indeed, the plaintiff also asserted that
she was going to institute a suit for specific performance of the
agreement – Cause of action for the suit for specific performance
had arisen when the plaintiff had notice of the denial by the
defendant to perform the contract – There was a complete identity
of the cause of action between the earlier suit and the cause of
[2019] 18 S.C.R. 1125
1125
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
action for the subsequent suit – This is a relief for which the plaintiff
was entitled to sue when the earlier suit for injunction was instituted,
however the plaintiff omitted to sue for specific performance –
Having omitted the claim for relief without the leave of the court,
the bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) would stand attracted.
Order 2 Rule 2(1) – Principle under – Held: Order 2 Rule
2(1) adopts the principle that the law does not countenance a
multiplicity of litigation – Hence, a plaintiff who is entitled to assert
a claim for relief on the basis of a cause of action must include the
whole of the claim – However, it is open to the plaintiff to relinquish
any portion of the claim in order to bring the suit within the
jurisdiction of the court – Plaintiff who omits to sue in respect of or
intentionally relinquishes any portion of the claim, shall not
afterwards be entitled to sue in respect of the portion omitted or
relinquished – Order 2 Rule 2(3) stipulates that a person who is
entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action
may sue for all or any of such reliefs – However, a plaintiff who
omits to sue for all the reliefs, without the leave of the Court, shall
not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted – Leave of the Court
will obviate the consequence which arises under Order 2 Rule 2(3).
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Order 2 Rule 2(1) CPC is premised on the
foundation that the whole of the claim which a plaintiff CPC is
entitled to make in respect of a cause of action must be included.
However, it is open to the plaintiff to relinquish any portion of
the claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the
Court. Order 2 Rule 2(1) adopts the principle that the law does
not countenance a multiplicity of litigation. Hence, a plaintiff who
is entitled to assert a claim for relief on the basis of a cause of
action must include the whole of the claim. A plaintiff who omits
to sue in respect of or intentionally relinquishes any portion of
the claim, shall not afterwards be entitled to sue in respect of the
portion omitted or relinquished. This is the mandate of Order 2
Rule 2(2). Order 2 Rule 2(3) stipulates that a person who is entitled
to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action
may sue for all or any of such reliefs. However, a plaintiff who
omits to sue

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