Supreme Court bars fresh suit for specific performance under Order II Rule 2

The core issue is whether the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prevents the plaintiff from seeking specific performance in the fresh suit despite having sought liberty to file it.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Bombay Garage Ahmedabad Limited & Ors.; Respondents: J P Iscon Private Ltd. & Anr.; Bench: Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

What the court decided

• The Court analyzed the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC and Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC regarding the withdrawal of the first suit and the filing of the second suit.
• The Court noted that in the present case, the plaintiff produced the plaint of the earlier suit, distinguishing it from cases where the defendant failed to produce it.
• The Court reviewed precedents including Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, Gurinderpal v. Jagmittar Singh, and Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited.
• The Court stated that the bar under Order II Rule 2 requires proof that the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief and omitted to sue for the relief in the second suit without leave.
• The Court noted that in Gurinderpal v. Jagmittar Singh, the inference of liberty to file a fresh suit was considered impermissible contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'Reportable'.
• The Court explicitly stated that the inference drawn in Gurinderpal v. Jagmittar Singh (2004) 11 SCC 219 is 'impermissible and running contrary to the Constitution Bench decision' in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal.
• The Court noted that the plaintiff in the present case produced the plaint of the earlier suit, whereas in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, the earlier plaint was not produced in evidence by the defendant.