Distinct causes of action defeat Order 2 Rule 2 bar in a later specific performance suit after an injunction action.

The Supreme Court of India explained that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not bar a later suit for specific performance where the earlier suit was only for permanent injunction, because the two claims arise from distinct causes of action and involve different factual ingredients. It further held that withdrawal of the earlier suit could still permit a fresh suit when the withdrawal statement and order showed that the plaintiff was withdrawing to pursue appropriate relief before the competent forum, even without an express liberty clause. The suit for specific performance was therefore maintainable, the objection under Order 7 Rule 11 failed, and the matter was restored for trial on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the subsequent suit for specific performance was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 because the earlier suit was only for permanent injunction; (ii) Whether withdrawal of the earlier suit without an express liberty clause nevertheless permitted institution of the fresh suit for specific performance.

Issue (i): Whether the subsequent suit for specific performance was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 because the earlier suit was only for permanent injunction.

Analysis: The bar under Order 2 Rule 2 applies only when the relief claimed in the later suit was available on the same cause of action in the earlier suit and was omitted or relinquished there. The cause of action for injunction based on threatened dispossession is distinct from the cause of action for specific performance arising from the agreement and refusal or failure to perform. The reliefs are not identical, the factual ingredients differ, and the governing limitation provisions are also separate. A plaintiff, therefore, cannot be compelled to combine both claims in one suit where the causes of action are independent.

Conclusion: The bar under Order 2 Rule 2 was not attracted and the suit for specific performance was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether withdrawal of the earlier suit without an express liberty clause nevertheless permitted institution of the fresh suit for specific performance.

Analysis: The statement recorded at the time of withdrawal showed that the earlier suit was withdrawn with a view to approach the competent forum for appropriate relief. That statement, read with the withdrawal order, was sufficient to indicate permission to institute fresh proceedings. The absence of a formal recital of liberty did not defeat the right to file the later suit in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The fresh suit was not barred on this ground and could proceed on merits.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit by the courts below was set aside, the objection under Order 7 Rule 11 was rejected, and the suit was restored for trial on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the earlier and later suits rest on distinct causes of action, omission to claim specific performance in an earlier injunction suit does not attract Order 2 Rule 2, and a withdrawal order read with the party's statement may support the institution of a fresh suit.

---