Supreme Court on Relinquishment of Part of Claim and Omission to Sue for any Relief

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Pramod Kumar & Anr. v. Zalak Singh & Ors., discussed and crystallized the jurisprudence relating to the bar provided under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. The Court explained and discussed in depth the terms like cause of action, relief, claim etc.

Order II Rule 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”) is reproduced hereinbelow: -

“2. Suit to include the whole claim

(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.

(2) Relinquishment of part of claim- Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or internationally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs- A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.

Explanation- For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.

3. Joinder of causes of action

(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.

(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit.”

A Civil Suit (second civil suit) was involved in the present case in which it was contended that the suit-property was sold unilaterally in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the joint family as the suit-property was in the nature of a joint family ancestral property. There were two Sale Deeds involved, in respect of one of which, earlier, a Civil Suit (first civil suit) had already been preferred to its logical conclusion. The legal issue involved was that is the Suit (second civil suit) liable to be dismissed on the ground of Order II Rule 2 of CPC and constructive res judicata? It was argued that the two sale deeds, involving different dates, would constitute separate causes of action and hence, the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC would not get attracted. A bare perusal of Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would be apposite in this regard: -

Article 109

By a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law to set aside his father’s alienation of ancestral property.

Twelve years

When the alienee takes possession of the property.

The gist of the law crystallized by the Supreme Court in the said case is as follows: -

1. Even though there are two sale deeds/alienations involved, yet the same would be construed to have stemmed from one single cause of action as the case of the Plaintiff is that the suit-property is joint family ancestral property and both the alienations vide the two sale deeds were part of the same cause of action, namely, selling of joint family ancestral property in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the joint family.

2. The principle underlying Order II Rule 2 of CPC is that no man can be vexed twice over the same cause of action and all claims and reliefs, which arise from a cause of action, must be comprehended in one single suit.

3. Order II Rule 2 of CPC provides for the Principle of Repose meaning thereby that a cause of action already decided must be given rest to.

4. Merely because a different period of limitation is provided under the Limitation Act, 1963, the same would not be a bar to the applicability of Order II Rule 2 of CPC.

5. Cause of Action is the bundle of facts, which if traversed, must be proved.

6. Order II Rule 2 (2) and (3) of CPC are different as in the case of relinquishment or omission of claim or its part, the Plaintiff is totally barred from instituting a suit later in respect of such claim. However, in case of omission of any relief in a suit, the same may be incorporated in a later suit if leave is obtained from the Court. Further, Order II Rule 2 of CPC will not apply where there is more than one cause of action.

7. In the case at hand, both the earlier suit and the present suit involve identical averments in regard to both the transactions. The Plaintiff ought to have included relief in the form of setting aside of the second sale deed also as such sale deed was executed before the institution of the first suit.

Thus, the Court did not find a need to go into the question of constructive res judicata and held that the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC would apply.

Opinion

These days it is hard to find judgments relating to the provisions of CPC as the same involve a considerable degree of time and understanding to be devoted for deciding the issue. In the instant case, the Court could have adopted an easy route by remanding the matter back to the High Court to decide on the above-mentioned points. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the pains to go through the entire jurisprudence relating to Order II Rule 2 of CPC and settled the controversy that even if two sale deeds are involved in a case, that does not per se mean that there are two difference cause of actions. This is a very common mistake that advocates commit while drafting a Plaint by suggesting that just because there are two sale deeds, two separate cases have to be instituted.

Further, this Judgment also holds importance from the point of view of cases in which share is claimed from joint family properties. This Judgment if applied in its proper perspective by the High Courts and the Trial Courts can have a far-reaching impact on the pending litigations across India. There are many cases where share in joint family properties have been sought and for each sale deed/transaction, a different Civil Suit has been filed. The present Judgment settles the controversy once and for all.

It is noteworthy that not only an interpretative exercise has been carried out by the Supreme Court but also an effort has been made to describe the entire process and reasoning adopted for taking the case to its logical conclusion.

CPC is ignored by most of us at most of the times. It has a lot of provisions that are hidden gems, tricks and surprises like the one we found in the present case, that if used wisely may have the potential to alter the destiny of a case. I sincerely hope that the application and utility of CPC does not become an extinct species in the future.