In a significant judgment, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan clarified the scope and application of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The ruling, delivered in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. and Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 372-373 of 2025), addressed the principle that no person should be vexed twice for the same cause of action while preserving the plaintiff’s right to seek remedies for distinct causes of action. The decision has significant implications for civil litigation, particularly in property disputes.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around a land dispute involving a one-acre property in Thiyagavalli village, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited (Respondent No. 1) claimed rights over the property based on an agreement for sale executed with Mrs. Senthamizh Selvi (Respondent No. 2) in January 2007. According to Chemplast, the agreement was registered, and possession of the property was delivered after the payment of the full consideration.
However, in 2008, Mrs. Selvi executed another sale deed in favor of Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Limited (Appellant), creating conflicting ownership claims. Chemplast alleged that this subsequent sale violated its pre-existing agreement and filed two suits: the first for an injunction to protect its possession and the second for specific performance of its sale agreement and cancellation of the appellant’s sale deed.
The appellant argued that Chemplast’s second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, as the claims for specific performance and cancellation could have been raised in the earlier injunction suit.
Key Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether Chemplast’s second suit for specific performance and cancellation of the subsequent sale deed was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, which prohibits splitting claims or reliefs arising from the same cause of action unless expressly reserved.
The Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delivering the judgment, analyzed the fundamental principles underpinning Order II Rule 2 CPC:
1. Unified Claims Requirement: The provision aims to prevent vexatious litigation by consolidating all claims and reliefs stemming from the same cause of action into one suit.
2. Substantive Cause of Action Test: The Court emphasized that the test for whether two suits arise from the same cause of action depends on whether they are supported by the same facts and evidence.
The Court noted that in the first suit, Chemplast sought to protect its possession against immediate threats of dispossession. The second suit, however, arose after Chemplast discovered the appellant’s sale deed, which warranted a different legal response. The Court observed that the causes of action in the two suits were distinct, as the reliefs in the second suit could not have been claimed in the first.
In its critical observation, the Court stated:
“Order II Rule 2 CPC is designed to avoid duplicity in litigation, but it does not preclude suits based on separate and distinct causes of action, even if they originate from the same transaction.”
The Court further clarified that the bar under Order II Rule 2 applies irrespective of the pendency or disposal of the earlier suit, as long as the subsequent suit arises from the same cause of action.
Parties and Legal Representation
– Appellant: Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd., represented by Senior Advocate Mr. V. Prabhakar.
– Respondents: Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. and Mrs. Senthamizh Selvi, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. V. Chitambaresh.
