Order 2 Rule 2 CPC applies only to the same cause of action; an accepted bill of exchange creates a distinct claim.

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bars a later proceeding only where it is founded on the same cause of action as the earlier suit and a relief on that very cause of action was omitted. Here, the earlier foreign suit arose from banking facilities and a continuing guarantee, while the recovery application was based on dishonour and non-payment of a specific accepted bill of exchange. Because an accepted bill creates an independent contract and the acceptor becomes primarily liable, the overlapping amount did not make the causes of action identical. Section 22 of the 1993 Act did not exclude Order 2 Rule 2. The later recovery application was therefore not barred and had to be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the later recovery proceeding was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the earlier foreign suit had already claimed the same amount arising out of the banking arrangement.

Analysis: The bar under Order 2 Rule 2 applies only when the later proceeding is founded on the same cause of action as the earlier proceeding and the plaintiff had omitted a relief available on that very cause of action. The earlier Singapore suit was based on the banking facilities sanctioned to the Singapore company and the continuing guarantee, whereas the original application before the Tribunal was founded on the dishonour and non-payment of a specific bill of exchange accepted by the Indian company. A bill of exchange, once accepted, creates an independent contract and the acceptor becomes primarily liable. The fact that the amount claimed in the later proceeding was included in the amount mentioned in the earlier suit did not make the causes of action identical. Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 did not exclude the application of the principle of Order 2 Rule 2 to proceedings before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The later recovery application was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The appellate tribunal was correct in setting aside the dismissal and directing adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bars a subsequent proceeding only when it is based on the same cause of action as the earlier proceeding and not merely because both proceedings arise out of the same transaction or involve overlapping amounts; an accepted bill of exchange gives rise to a distinct and independent cause of action.

---