Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bar requires the same cause of action; an earlier misconceived proceeding did not defeat the later possession suit.

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bars a later suit only where it arises from the same cause of action as an earlier suit and the omitted relief could have been claimed then. A prior proceeding seeking impleadment in execution and continuation of execution was held not to be a suit for possession on title and did not found the later possession claim. The earlier proceeding therefore did not trigger the bar, and the suit for possession of Schedule I properties was not barred under Order 2 Rule 2.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff's suit for possession of the properties in Schedule I was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that an earlier suit had been filed on a different relief arising out of the same transaction.

Analysis: Order 2, Rule 2 requires a plaintiff to include the whole claim arising from the same cause of action in one suit. The earlier suit was not a suit for possession on title, but a misconceived proceeding seeking a declaration of entitlement to be impleaded in execution and to continue the execution. That earlier cause of action did not form the foundation of the later suit for possession, nor did it entitle the plaintiff to claim the relief now sought. The earlier proceeding therefore did not attract the bar under Order 2, Rule 2.

Conclusion: The suit for possession in respect of Schedule I was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the finding of the courts below on that point was /incorrect in law.

Ratio Decidendi: The bar of Order 2, Rule 2 applies only when the later suit arises from the same cause of action as the earlier suit and the omitted relief could have been claimed in that earlier proceeding.

---