Order 2 Rule 2 bar requires proof of the earlier plaint; eviction merits were remitted for fresh consideration.

A plea of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC can succeed only if the defendant proves the plaint in the earlier suit, enabling the Court to compare the causes of action and determine identity between the two suits; it cannot rest on inference or conjecture. Where the earlier plaint is not proved on record, the bar cannot be sustained. The document also notes that the eviction claim based on erection of a permanent structure required fresh merits consideration because the High Court had not examined that ground after disposing of the matter mainly on the Order 2 Rule 2 objection. The suit-bar finding was set aside and the eviction revision remitted for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plea of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be sustained without proving the plaint in the earlier suit; (ii) whether the matter relating to eviction on the ground of erection of a permanent structure required reconsideration on merits by the High Court.

Issue (i): whether the plea of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be sustained without proving the plaint in the earlier suit

Analysis: The plea under Order 2 Rule 2 is a technical bar founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits. Such a plea cannot be upheld on inferential reasoning alone. The earlier plaint must be brought on record and proved according to law so that the Court can compare the causes of action and determine whether the subsequent suit is barred.

Conclusion: The plea under Order 2 Rule 2 could not be sustained unless the earlier plaint was proved on record.

Issue (ii): whether the matter relating to eviction on the ground of erection of a permanent structure required reconsideration on merits by the High Court

Analysis: The courts below had also examined the merits of the eviction claim based on construction of a permanent structure without the landlord's consent, but the High Court had not dealt with that aspect. Since the revisional court had disposed of the matter mainly on the Order 2 Rule 2 objection, a reconsideration on the merits of the eviction ground was necessary. The order also made clear that additional evidence could not be used to bring in the earlier plaint if it had not been proved, and that the merits under the tenancy statute would then have to be examined.

Conclusion: The eviction matter was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration on merits.

Final Conclusion: The finding that the suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 was set aside, while the eviction-related revision was sent back for fresh consideration under the relevant tenancy law.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable only when the defendant proves the plaint in the earlier suit and thereby establishes the identity of the cause of action; it cannot rest on conjecture or deduction.

---