Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Order 2 Rule 2-
The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908 is a code that regulates the procedure to be
followed in courts in a civil case. It is divided into two parts: the first part contains 158
sections and the second part is comprised of the First Schedule that contains 51 Orders and
Rules. The sections provide provisions regarding the general principles of jurisdiction,
whereas, the orders and rules state the procedure and method to govern civil proceedings in
India. It is a procedural law that prescribes the procedure and machinery to be followed by
the courts for the enforcement of the rights and liabilities in a civil issue.
MEANING-
Order 2, Rule 2 states that a plaintiff must include their entire claim related to a single cause
of action in one lawsuit. They can't split the claim and sue for omitted parts later. However,
they can choose not to sue for certain parts initially, but they can't change their mind later
unless the court allows it. This rule prevents unnecessary multiple lawsuits for the same issue.
DEFINITION-
Order 2 Rule 2 of the code of Civil Procedure 1908
Suit to include the whole claim-
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.
EXPLANATION-
For the purposes of this rule, a debt obligation, a collateral security for its execution, and
succeeding claims arising out of the same debt obligation will each be regarded to constitute
just one cause of action.
According to Order 2 Rule 2, a plaintiff cannot divide a claim in order to exclude one part of
the claim and file for the other if he is entitled to several reliefs against the defendant in
connection with the same cause of action. Order 2 Rule 2 is founded on the fundamental idea
that the defendant should not be inconvenienced twice for the same claim, thus if the cause of
action is the same, the plaintiff must present all of his claims to the court in a single lawsuit.
Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code serves several different purposes. To ensure that no defendant is
sued and forced to defend themselves again for the same cause of action. Additionally, it
serves to prohibit a plaintiff from dividing up claims and available remedies within the same
cause of action.
The purpose of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code is to prevent a plaintiff who has already filed a
lawsuit seeking one type of relief for a breach of his rights from filing another lawsuit
seeking a different type of relief based on the same cause of action. However, it does not
exclude a subsequent lawsuit with a distinct and distinct cause of action.
Supreme Court explains law on Order II Rule 2 CPC
The relevant provision in regard to above is prescribed under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, which provides that if different and claims arise out of the same cause of action then
the Plaintiff must place all his claims before the Court in one suit and cannot omit one of the reliefs or
claims except without the leave of the Court.
In effect the provision bars a Plaintiff from omitting one part of claim and raising the same in a
subsequent suit. In other words, the grounds or cause of action on which the first suit was filed if
forms the foundation of the subsequent suit wherein the reliefs claimed could have been claimed in
the former suit and also the suits are between the same parties, the subsequent suit shall attract the bar
provided under the above provision.
The opposite party or Defendant must specifically plead the above position in the suit and there
should be a specific issue framed by the Court to examine the pleading of the former suit, thereby
giving Plaintiff an opportunity to demonstrate that the cause of action in the subsequent suit is
different.
In order to examine the position, it is necessary that both the plaints are read as a whole to identify the
cause of action and once the same are found to be identical and also that the relief claimed in the
subsequent suit could have been pleaded in the former suit, the subsequent suit shall be barred as per
Order 2 Rule 2.
[Coffee Board vs. M/S. Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd.]
(SC, 09.05.2014)
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS –
The concept of Order 2 Rule 2, the Supreme Court in the case of Deva Ram Vs.
Ishwar Chand 1996 AIR (SC) 378 has held that-
bare perusal of the above provisions would indicate that if a Plaintiff is entitled to
several reliefs against the Defendant in respect of the same cause of action, he cannot
split up the claim so as to omit one part of the claim and sue for the other. If the cause
of action is the same, the Plaintiff has to place all his claims before the Court in one
suit as Order II, Rule 2 is based on the cardinal principle that the Defendant should
not be vexed twice for the same cause.
In Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty and Ors. 1970 AIR SC 1059, it was held that if the cause of
action on the basis of which the previous suit was brought, does not form the foundation of
the subsequent suit and in the earlier suit the plaintiff could not have claimed the relief
which he sought in the subsequent suit, the latter namely, the subsequent suit, will not be
barred by the rule contained in Order 2 Rule 2, CPC.
In Swamy Atmanand V. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam 2005(10)SCC51the Supreme Court
held-
A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove an order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is
a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to
relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the
absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual
infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded"
The term Cause of Action is though mentioned but not defined anywhere in the Civil
Procedure Code, [Link] pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff must plead or allege the
requisite facts in the plaint. A cause of action is said to consist of two parts, legal theory (the
legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked
to grant). Sometimes a situation may arise where the facts or circumstances create Multiple
Causes of Action but in order to avoid the subsequent hurdle of Order 2 Rule 2, the plaintiff
must place his claim for the entire cause of action and not in parts.
The provisions of Order 2 Rule 2, though based upon an entirely different principle, are often
confused with the rule of Res Judicata, as envisaged in section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
In a very recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Brahma Singh vs Union Of India 2020
ALL SCR 634, it was held that
In relation to applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 this Court has
held in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others that
The bar of O.2 R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on which the High Court apparently relied
may not apply to a petition for a high prerogative writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but
the High Court having disallowed the claim of the appellant for salary prior to the date of the
suit, we do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the exercise of its
discretion by the High Court.
Placing reliance on the case of Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma (supra), this Court
in Gulab Chand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat in relation to Order II Rule 2 held that by
its very language, these provisions do not apply to the contents of a petition and
consequently do not apply to the contents of a subsequent suit,
Thus, the cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the effect of Order 2 Rule 2 of the
Code is to bar a plaintiff who had earlier claimed certain remedies in regard to a cause of
action, from filing a second suit in regard to other reliefs based on the same cause of action.
It is dehors the evil of splitting up claims, as well as remedies and, thus, ensures that where a
party fails to initiate action in respect of a cause of action for his suit is barred from
subsequently raking it up in the subsequently instituted suit.
Though, it does not place a bar on a second suit based on distinct and separate cause of
action. It may also be relevant to mention here that under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2(3)
if the plaintiff seeks the permission of the court to file a subsequent suit arising out of the
same cause of action and that permission is granted by the court then such a suit shall not
be barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.