Express reservation of claims defeats Order II Rule 2 bar in a later suit founded on a distinct cause of action.

A later suit for arrears, warehousing charges and damages was held not to be barred where the earlier plaint expressly reserved those claims and leave to sue separately had been granted. The Court treated the two suits as arising from distinct causes of action and found no relinquishment or omission of the later reliefs, so Order II Rule 2 CPC did not apply. Because the second suit remained maintainable, rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was also not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second suit for recovery of arrears, warehousing charges and damages was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the plaint in the later commercial suit was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The first suit had specifically reserved the right to claim arrears, storage charges, warehouse charges and damages in a separate proceeding. Leave to institute a separate suit had also been sought and granted by the Trial Court. The claims in the two suits arose from different causes of action, and there was no relinquishment of the claim or omission to sue for the reliefs now claimed. On these facts, the bar under Order II Rule 2 was not attracted. Since the later suit was maintainable, the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) also failed.

Conclusion: The second suit was not barred and the rejection application was rightly dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the earlier plaint expressly reserves a claim and leave to sue separately is granted, a later suit founded on a distinct cause of action is not barred by Order II Rule 2, and rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) is not warranted.

---