Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited And Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 372-373 of 2025 (@SLP (C) NOS. 1297-1298 of 2025) (@ SLP(C) D. No. 13548 of 2017)
Decided On : 15-01-2025
Please provide the content of the legal document (to replace {content}) so I can analyze it and extract the key points with proper references (e.g., (!) (!) ).
JUDGMENT
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:-
| A. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT (ORIGINAL DEFENDANT NO. 2) |
| C. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 (ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF) |
| D. | ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION |
| E. | ANALYSIS |
| I. General Principles underlying Order II Rule 2 CPC | |
| II. Status/Stage of the first suit is immaterial for the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC | |
| III. The plaints have to be read as a whole to determine the applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC for the purpose of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC | |
| IV. Application of the principles in Order II Rule 2 CPC to the institution of a suit for specific performance when the relief of permanent injunction was sought in a previous suit | |
| V. The “entitlement to” along with the “availability of” the relief as a requisite in determining the applicability of Order II Rule 2 | |
| F. | CONCLUSION |
1. Delay condoned in filing SLPs.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Madras dated 01.09.2016 in CMP No. 12498 of 2016 in S.A. No. 858 of 2014 and the order dated 30.06.2016 in S.A. No. 858 of 2014 respectively filed by the respondent no. 1 herein (original plaintiff) whereby the High Court allowed the second appeal and restored the plaint in O.S. No. 122 of 2008.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
4. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited (hereinafter, the “respondent no.1/original plaintiff”) is said to have entered into an agreement for sale with Mrs. Senthamizh Selvi (hereinafter, the “respondent no.2/original defendant no. 1” ) on 24.01.2007 whereby the respondent no. 2 agreed to sell the suit property admeasuring 1 acre situated in village Thiyagavalli, Cuddalore to the respondent no. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000. Pursuant to the agreement for sale and after receiving the entire sale consideration, it is the case of the respondent no. 1 that they were also put in possession of the suit property. In furtherance of the same, the respondent no. 2 is also said to have executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 26.03.2007 to enable the respondent no. 1 to complete the formalities as regards the execution and registration of the sale deed pertaining to the suit property. The Power of Attorney was registered with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Joint I, Chennai Central, on the same day. Consequently, on 07.09.2007, the respondent no. 1 got the agreement for sale in respect of the suit property registered with the Joint Sub Registrar II, Cuddalore.
5. However, on 02.11.2007, the respondent no. 2 issued a letter inter alia revoking the Power of Attorney issued in favour of the respondent no. 1 to which the respondent no. 1 issued a reply on 05.11.2007. After couple of months i.e., on 06.02.2008, the respondent no.2 again issued a letter to the respondent no. 1 in which she enclosed a demand draft of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000. According to the respondent no. 1, the letter inter alia mentioned that the demand draft was being enclosed in connection with the repayment of money borrowed from the respondent no. 1 for the purchase of a vehicle and there was no indication that the amount sought to be returned was towards the sale consideration which was received by the respondent no. 2 pursuant to the agreement for sale dated 24.01.2007. It is the case of the respondent no. 1 that, on 08.02.2008, they had returned the demand draft and issued a reply to the aforementioned letter. Additionally, it is also stated that on 09.02.2008, the respondent no. 1 furnished a notice to the respondent no. 2 asking her to perform her part of the agreement for sale by executing the sale deed and further not to alienate the property in favour of any other person. It appears that the respondent no. 2 has not furnished any reply to the sa
The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply when a second suit is based on a distinct cause of action arising from subsequent events, such as the lifting of a government ban on property registra....
The plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC prohibits a second suit for specific performance if based on the same cause of action previously omitted, and the suit is also barred by limitation under Art....
Subsequent suit barred under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC if on same cause of action as withdrawn prior suit, omitting reliefs without leave; plaint rejectable under Order VII Rule 11 if averments disclose....
The maintainability of a suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC if a plaintiff omits to claim it in an earlier suit concerning the same cause of action.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
