Order II Rule 2 and civil court jurisdiction principles governed a later title suit, while interim injunction protection was left undisturbed.

Order II Rule 2 bars a later suit only when it arises from the same cause of action and omits relief that could have been claimed earlier; a prior injunction action and a later suit for declaration and partition based on title were treated as distinct, so the bar did not apply. Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 ousts civil court jurisdiction only where the Tribunal is empowered to decide the matter; seriously disputed questions of title and proprietary shares in immovable property remained within civil court jurisdiction. Interference with ad interim injunction is warranted only for perversity or patent illegality, and no such defect was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the subsequent suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the earlier suit between the parties arose from the same cause of action. (ii) Whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction in view of Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the controversy could be decided only by the Tribunal. (iii) Whether the order granting ad interim relief called for interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the subsequent suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the earlier suit between the parties arose from the same cause of action.

Analysis: The bar under Order II Rule 2 applies only where the later suit is founded on the same cause of action and the plaintiff, though entitled to multiple reliefs on that cause, omitted one without leave. A suit for injunction based on a threatened interference and a later suit for declaration and partition founded on a distinct claim to title and separate reliefs do not necessarily arise from the same bundle of facts. The earlier suit was for preventive injunction, whereas the later suit sought declaration and partition of the property. The essential facts and reliefs were not identical.

Conclusion: The later suit was not barred by Order II Rule 2.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction in view of Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the controversy could be decided only by the Tribunal.

Analysis: Section 430 bars civil court jurisdiction only in matters which the Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. The controversy here involved a seriously disputed question of title and proprietary shares in immovable property, which is not amenable to summary determination by the Tribunal. The jurisdiction under the Companies Act was held to extend to rectification and allied matters, not to adjudication of disputed title, which remained a matter for the civil court.

Conclusion: The civil court's jurisdiction was not ousted.

Issue (iii): Whether the order granting ad interim relief called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: An appellate court interferes with a discretionary injunction order only if the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or contrary to settled principles. The court below had considered the rival claims, the nature of the suit property, and the need to preserve the subject matter pending trial. No patent illegality or perversity was shown in the grant of interim protection.

Conclusion: No interference with the discretionary injunction order was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial grounds, and the interlocutory order of the court below was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Order II Rule 2 bars a later suit only when it is based on the same cause of action and the omitted relief could have been claimed in the earlier suit, while Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not oust civil court jurisdiction over a seriously disputed question of title; discretionary injunction orders are interfered with only on proof of perversity or patent illegality.

---