Order II Rule 2 bar applied where a later suit arose from the same cause of action as the earlier claim.

The SC applied Order II Rule 2 CPC to hold that a later suit is barred where the omitted relief arises from the same cause of action as an earlier suit. On the pleadings, both suits stemmed from substantially identical facts, involving alienations by the same vendor in favour of the same defendants from the same property. A different date on the second sale deed, or a different limitation period, did not create a distinct cause of action. Although Order II Rule 3 permits joinder of causes of action, it does not override the bar under Order II Rule 2 when the omitted claim should have been included earlier. The subsequent suit was therefore barred and the contrary view was erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsequent suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 because the claim arising from the second sale deed should have been included in the earlier suit.

Analysis: Order II Rule 2 requires a plaintiff to include the whole claim arising from the same cause of action in one suit and bars a later suit for a portion of the claim omitted or relinquished. The controlling test is whether the later claim is founded on a cause of action distinct from the earlier one. On the pleadings, both suits rested on substantially identical factual foundations and related to alienations made by the same vendor in favour of the same defendants from the same property. The mere fact that the second sale deed carried a different date and might attract a different limitation period did not create a separate cause of action. Order II Rule 3 permits joinder of causes of action, but that does not dilute the embargo created by Order II Rule 2 where the omitted relief arises from the same cause of action. In these circumstances, the second challenge ought to have been included in the earlier suit.

Conclusion: The subsequent suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the High Court erred in holding otherwise.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the omitted relief arises from the same cause of action, a plaintiff cannot maintain a later suit by relying only on a different date of transaction or limitation period.

---