Order II Rule 2 CPC bars later specific performance suits when earlier injunction plaints already disclosed the full cause of action.

Order II Rule 2 CPC bars a later suit for specific performance where the earlier injunction suit, based on the same agreements, already disclosed the full cause of action and showed grounds for seeking the additional relief. The plaintiff was required to claim all available reliefs on that cause of action or obtain leave to omit one; absent such leave, the later suit was not maintainable. The pendency of the earlier suits and the argument that specific performance had not yet matured did not avoid the statutory bar, because a plaintiff need not always wait for the due date where the defendant's conduct indicates an intention not to perform. The later plaints were struck off.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the subsequent suits for specific performance were barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in view of the earlier suits for injunction based on the same agreements; (ii) Whether the fact that the earlier suits were still pending or that the relief of specific performance had not yet matured made the later suits maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the subsequent suits for specific performance were barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in view of the earlier suits for injunction based on the same agreements.

Analysis: Order II Rule 2 requires a plaintiff to include the whole claim arising from a single cause of action and, where more than one relief is available on the same cause of action, to claim all such reliefs or obtain leave of the Court. The bar applies when the earlier suit and the later suit are founded on the same cause of action and the plaintiff, though entitled to additional relief, omits it without leave. The pleadings in the first suits themselves showed that the plaintiff alleged the defendant was attempting to frustrate the agreements and was not intending to honour them. Those facts furnished a complete foundation to seek specific performance along with injunction. No leave to omit that relief was obtained.

Conclusion: The subsequent suits were barred by Order II Rule 2(3) and were not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the fact that the earlier suits were still pending or that the relief of specific performance had not yet matured made the later suits maintainable.

Analysis: A premature suit does not necessarily fail merely because performance is not yet due, especially where the defendant's conduct shows an intention not to perform. There is no universal rule that a plaintiff must always wait for the due date before suing for specific performance. The object of Order II Rule 2 is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings on the same cause of action, and that object would be defeated if the bar were confined only to cases where the earlier suit had already been disposed of. The later suits could therefore be barred even though the earlier suits were pending.

Conclusion: Pendency of the earlier suits and the plea of prematurity did not save the later suits from the statutory bar.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the plaints in the later suits were struck off as not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the earlier plaint itself discloses a complete cause of action for an additional relief, omission to claim that relief without leave bars a later suit on the same cause of action under Order II Rule 2, even if the earlier suit is still pending and the subsequent claim is said to be premature.

---