The principle that bars the institution of another action for the same cause of action is part of the doctrine of res judicata and is provided under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC[1]. This rule requires that all reliefs which stem from the same cause of action should be claimed in one action. Failing to do so means that the plaintiff cannot thereafter bring another suit for any other remedies that he or she may have desired. The reason for this provision is to avoid the situation where there are several suits pending in the court, to guard the court's efficiency and to spare the defendant the agony of being subjected to several suits for the same matter.

The decision of the Hon'ble court in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (1964)[2] is a landmark judgment which explores the principle and scope of Order II Rule 2 CPC. It answers the general legal issue of whether there is legal basis in filing a second suit where the plaintiff could have raised the same cause of action in the previous suit but did not. The Supreme Court in this case was therefore able to establish important factors that would help in defining when two suits are based on the same cause of action and when Order II Rule 2 would apply.

In the case of Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal the plaintiff Bhooralal sued the defendant Gurbux Singh in two suits both of which were alleged to have arisen out of the same cause of action. In the first suit, the plaintiff claimed some mesne profits for the possession of the property in question. But, during the pendency of the first suit, Bhooralal filed another suit for recovery of possession under the same contract. The defendant contended that the second suit was struck out by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC since the claim of possession ought to have formed a part of the earlier suit which was filed for specific performance.

The court of subordinate judge decided in favour of Gurbux Singh thereby holding that the second suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. On appeal the trial court considered this plea on two alternative basis, first, that the pleadings of the earlier suit were not filed in this case, for this reason he believed this plea should not have been entertained at all. However, the District Judge also dug deeper into analysing of what would be the consequences if the plea was available, to which he said, that he would have decided the case in favour of Bhooralal, treating a suit for possession from a trespasser and a suit for mesne profits as two distinct suits. The High Court affirmed this decision and the matter was taken to Supreme Court.

The supreme court ideated upon the principle that for the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 to operate the cause of action in both actions must be the same and in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff must be entitled to more than one relief and the plaintiff has omitted the relief claimed in the second action whether intentionally or by negligence.

This case can be said to be a leading decision in the demarcation of the contours of Order II Rule 2 CPC while restating the proposition that all the remedies flowing from a single cause of action ought to be pursued in one action so as to avert multiplicity of suits.

Contentions
In Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, both the plaintiff and the defendant raised crucial contentions concerning the applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). These arguments revolved around barring of a suit if there is a failure to claim all available reliefs in the first suit.

Raised by the Plaintiff (Gurbux Singh):

• Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC: According to the plaintiff, Gurbux Singh, the second suit filed by Bhooralal was not maintainable under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The plaintiff's argument was that both the suits filed by Bhooralal stemmed from the same cause of action, that is, breach of contract. In the first suit, the plaintiff sought specific performance of the contract to recover some mesne profits but he did not include the claim for possession of the property which could have been claimed as another relief in the same suit. We know that, Order II Rule 2 provides that where a plaintiff has more than one relief on the same cause of action, he must seek all of them in the same proceeding. Since, Bhooralal failed to do so, the second suit should be barred.
   
• Failure to Claim All Reliefs in the First Suit: Gurbux Singh argued that the exclusion of the possession claim in the first suit was either deliberate or negligent on the part of Bhooralal and this was done without the leave of the court. The counsel for the plaintiff said that Bhooralal knew that possession of the property could have been demanded as an additional relief together with specific performance of the contract. Since the plaintiff omitted this relief in the first suit, he lost his right to bring it in the second suit. Gurbux Singh argued his case on the basis of the proposition that a plaintiff cannot split his cause of action and file multiple suits which is unlawful and amounts to harassment, leading to multiplicity of the suit.
   
• Prevention of Multiplicity of Suits and Harassment: The plaintiff also pointed out that the effect of allowing the second suit would be the setting in motion of another action and harassing the plaintiff by making him defend himself in two suits in respect of the same matter. The plaintiff also referred to Order II Rule 2 CPC to check such misuse of the legal procedure and make it certain that all the claims that have arisen out of the same cause of action are presented in one single action. Since both suits arose out of the same contract, the plaintiff argued that the second suit was barred; allowing it would be contrary to the principles of res judicata and equity.
   
• Res Judicata: While mainly basing his defence on Order II Rule 2 CPC, the defendant also relied on the general principle of res judicata. It prevents the repetition of issues that were or could have been brought before a court in a previous lawsuit. The defendant also cited that as the issue of possession could have been raised in the first suit for specific performance, the principle of res judicata should apply, thus the court cannot allow the plaintiff to seek possession in another court.

Raised by the Respondent (Bhooralal):

• Distinct Cause of Action: The defendant, Bhooralal, averred that the two suits arise out of separate causes of action. In the first suit, relief claimed was that of specific performance of the contract and in the second suit for recovery of the property. In the defendant's view, these two claims were distinct and did not form a part of a single cause of action. Specific relief refers to the order forcing the defendant to perform his/her contractual duties, while possession entails control of the property in question. In addition, the defendant maintained that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC applies where several reliefs are claimed from the same cause of action, which in his estimation the current matter was not.
   
• No Waiver of Rights: The plaintiff also stated that he had never intended, nor was negligent, when he did not lay claim to possession of the property in the first suit. He said that at the time of filing the first suit, the main aim was to obtain an order of the court for the specific performance of the contract. The issue of possession could only arise after the court had entered an order of specific performance as the property would then be rightfully his. Hence, it cannot be said that the defendant has waived his right to seek that relief in the first suit because there was no claim of possession. In his defence, the defendant argued that he never intended to abandon his right of possession by not including it in the first suit.
   
• Interpretation of Order II Rule 2 CPC: In the last, the defendant argued that the rule should not be read literally. The rule seeks to avoid a situation in which a plaintiff isolates his or her causes of action in a manner that would subject the defendant to a barrage of lawsuits. However, it should not be applied in a manner that a defendant must always take all reliefs in one suit where circumstances may dictate that such reliefs may only be taken later. In this case, the defendant felt that the claim for possession was premature when made in the first suit.

Issue:

• There was a clear conflict of judicial opinion on the question of whether a suit for possession of immovable property and a suit for recovery of mesne profits from the same property are both based on the same cause of action so that the plea of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, to bar the suit, could succeed.

Held:
When the case first went to the court of the subordinate judge, he framed five issues to decide the case up on. The issue of highlight at this point was "Whether Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is a bar?" [3]. This issue was addressed by the trial judge as a "preliminary issue", which was discussed even before the presentation of the evidence. The court recorded its findings and stated that the suit must be barred by the said provision and directed to dismiss the case.

Aggrieved by the said decision of the subordinate court, Bhooralal preferred for an appeal from the decree of the subordinate judge to the Additional District Judge. The appellate court in this regard considered the plea of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on two broad basis. In the first place, the learned Add. District Judge contended that the pleadings of the previous suit have not been filed along with this case and made a part of the record, because of which the correct cause of action and the precise allegations cannot be deciphered. For this reason, the appellate court held that the plea of a bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be entertained at all. In view of his finding, he set aside the dismissal of the suit and was put back to the trial court for being decided on the merits of the case.

This decision of the court was put for second appeal by the plaintiff, Gurbux Singh before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan which again ended up being dismissed by a single judge bench. Refusing to give up, he then filed a Special Leave at the Supreme Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took cognisance of a conflicting judicial opinion and dug deeper into the question that "Whether a suit for possession of immovable property and a suit for recovery of mesne profits from the property are based on the same cause of action?". This question finally led to a declaration by the court after pickle balling of this case. The Supreme Court took a note of Order II Rule 4 of CPC,1908 and upheld that while investigating the course of action regarding the suit of possession and the suit for recovery of mesne profits, the district judge had rightly held that the appellant had not placed proper material that would satisfy the claims in his plea of Oder II rule 2. The court also set down three important conditions that are to be paid heed to while listing under Order II:-

1. The second suit should be a suit w.r.t the same cause of action on which the first suit was based.
2. If the cause of action so obtained is same, the plaintiff shall be entitled to more than one relief.
3. The plea may be omitted without applying for a leave for the addition of relief of the second suit.

By mentioning these, the court stated that establishment of the cause of action held primary value, the ignorance of which would eliminate the scope for application of bar according to the code. Establishing the significance of this technicality, the court held that an inferential reasoning is not enough to satisfy the application of a bar. The conditions need to be corroborated to a satisfactory extent. It was also highlighted that because of the lack of translation to the present suit (originally in Hindi) the claim for mesne profits couldn't be perused and therefore the plea under Order II Rule 2 was formally dismissed.

Analysis and Opinion:
This case in my opinion gives us a chance to point out various aspects of the code due to the lack of judicial opinion because of which this judgement even though good in law, could have been a better one. I believe that the court has successfully been able establish and make use of the principle of finality i.e. Res Judicata (S.11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908)[4].

This doctrine prevents the flooding of litigation and re-filing of cases thereby making the process of attaining justice a smooth journey for everyone. The patience of judiciary is truly remarkable when it comes to the issue of recurring hardships often resulting in delays and hurdles. This case underscores the importance of Res Judicata in a very significant manner.

However, I would further like to point out the part where the court relied on the judgements of Hon'ble High Courts of Madras and Allahabad which ended up in a judicial dilemma about the aspect of Order II Rule 2 vis-à-vis "the cause of action". To investigate the same for the suit for possession of immovable property and mesne profits the property does not have the same cause of action if they posed reliance on the rulings as provided by High Court of Madras.

On the other hand, they also recorded the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and remarked further that they may have the same course of action. In my understanding, the law holds an intrinsic value for the country and to strengthen it's foundation, the precedential value and a recurrent consensus throughout the territory are two utmost important features. But the silver lining here is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was able to lay down a more uniform categorisation for the principle of the code to be applied properly.

Precedents like Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand[5] where the court's judgement clearly lays that the failure of one suit to claim damages against the opponent shall not be taken up again for an issue involving the same cause of action and the same relief. There are various other cases like that of Inbasagaran v. S. Natarajan (AIR 1996 SC 3180) which prevent multiplicity of cases arising out of the same cause of action.

The obligation to prove the burden of identity falls upon the defendant as declared by Sidramappa v. Rajashetty[6]. All these cases support the ruling provided in our case and suggest the need for uniformity and a clearly established boundary for the people taking up such suits.

Along these lines:
"It may be noted that there may be situations where one overt act may give rise to a multiple legal complication, some instantly and some subsequently. The court in such a situation cannot invoke the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 so as to reject the case of the plaintiff, if it is established that the subsequent suit is based on a cause of action, which though maybe an off shoot of the same act, but has arisen subsequently"[7.

This precisely supports my line of thought that the efficiency in following the modus operandi of a civil suit is the need of the hour. Litigants and their legal representatives have to understand that the "benefit" arising out of litigation proceeding should not be the preliminary focus as it only an accessory to the same. Respecting and properly following the procedures laid down by the law not only provides for compliance in courts but also ensures rapid resolution of disputes. "By understanding its rationale, exceptions, and practical implications, both plaintiffs and defendants can navigate the legal system more effectively."[8]

I would hereby like to conclude my analysis by stating that the Indian courts should demarcate interpretation of the provisions established by our statutes in vary clear cut manner, avoiding which can bring in various challenges. Again, this judgement is one of its kind while resolving the broader objectives of our code(s) but at the same time, the scope of improvement shall not be left unnoticed.

References:

1. The Code of Civil Procedure (1908) Order II, Rule 2.
2. Gurbux Singh v Bhooralal 1964 AIR 1810: 1964 SCR (7) 831
3. Gurbux Singh (n2)
4. The Code of Civil Procedure (1908) Section 11.
5. Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand (AIR 1996 SC 378)
6. Sidramappa v. Rajashetty (1970 AIR 1059, 1970 SCR (2) 319).
7. Mittal Avnish, 'Order 2 Rule 2 - A Bar To Splitting Of Evil' (Law Finder Live, 05 November 2020) accessed 10 September 2024.
8. Legallyincom, 'Order 2 Rule 2: The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)' (Legallyincom, 11 March 2024) https://legallyin.com/order-2-rule-2-the-code-of-civil-procedure-cpc accessed 10 September 2024

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Parth Kapoor

Authentication No: NV468206675430-11-1124