The bar of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, applies when a plaintiff omits to sue or intentionally relinquishes a portion of his claim in respect of the cause of action, and the point of time for determining the bar is the date of the institution of the suit.

Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 2, RULE 2 - BAR OF SUBSEQUENT SUIT - CONSOLIDATION OF SUITS - POINT OF TIME FOR DETERMINING BAR - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER 2, RULE 2(2).
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed three suits for possession of different properties, claiming title as the adopted son of the original owner. The suits were heard together, but the trial court dismissed suits Nos. 79 and 117, holding that they were barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, as the plaintiff had omitted to include the claims in suit No. 633, which was filed earlier.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff's suits were barred under Order 2, Rule 2. The court found that the plaintiff had not obtained an order for consolidation of the suits and had not amended the plaint in suit No. 633 to include the claims in suits Nos. 79 and 117. Therefore, the court held that the suits were filed separately and the bar of Order 2, Rule 2, applied.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff's suits were barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, for omitting to include the claims in suit No. 633, which was filed earlier. 2. Whether the consolidation of suits or amendment of the plaint could have prevented the bar of Order 2, Rule 2.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order 2, Rule 2(2), Civil Procedure Code, bars a subsequent suit if a plaintiff omits to sue or intentionally relinquishes a portion of his claim in respect of the cause of action. 2. The point of time for determining the bar under Order 2, Rule 2(2) is the date of the institution of the suit, not the date of the passing of the decree. 3. Consolidation of suits or amendment of the plaint can prevent the bar of Order 2, Rule 2, if done before the institution of the subsequent suit.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeals, confirming the trial court's decrees. The court held that the plaintiff's suits were barred under Order 2, Rule 2, as he had failed to take steps to consolidate the suits or amend the plaint in suit No. 633 to include the claims in suits Nos. 79 and 117.

Judgment - 1. These two appeals arise respectively from suits Nos. 79 and 117 of 1943 filed by the plaintiff appellant to recover from defendants l and 2 and their tenants possession of the suit property. The facts leading up to the suits are shortly these.

2. The property in dispute in suit No. 79. is survey No. 271 and a vacant house-site. The property in dispute in suit No. 117 consists of four fields. The fields bear survey Nos. 83/2 84 of Kuroli, survey No. 844/2 of Mahim and survey No. 17 of Bhandi-Shegaon. These properties originally belonged to the adoptive father of the plaintiff. There was a third suit (No. 633 of 1942) and the property in dispute in that suit consisted of two fields bearing survey Nos. 270 and 295. The plaintiffs case was that these properties belonged to Ramchandra who adopted the plaintiff in 1930 and died on 24-1-1931. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he obtained possession of these lands as the adopted sort of Ramchandra, but in October 1936 Shankar, the? deceased father of defendants 1 and 2, got the lands entered in his name in the record of rights, and relying upon the entries in the record of rights he dispossessed the plaintiff. As the plaintiff was dispossessed illegally, he filed the three suits for possession against Shankars sons as defendants 1 and 2 and against the tenants in possession of the suit property.

3. Suit No. 633 was filed on 13-7-1942; suit No. 79 was filed on 25-1-1943, and suit No. 117 was filed also on 25-1-1943.

4. The principal defence in suit No. 633 was that the plaintiff was not entitled to those properties because the properties came to Shankar, the father, who was the nearest heir of Ramchandra in the watan family.

5. Suit No. 633 has been decreed and it is-necessary to refer to that suit save for the purpose of considering the bar under O. 2, B. 2, Civil P. C.

6. In suits Nos. 79 and 117 defendants 1 and 2 raised the plea, among others, that the plaintiffs suits were barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. There was, it appears, an ex parte decree. Appeals were taken to the District Court and the learned Assistant Judge reversed the decrees and remanded the suits to the trial Court for disposal on the merits.

7. Upon the two suits going back to the trial Court, the trial Court then heard the two suits and dismissed them, save in the case of suit No. 79 with respect to the house-site, holding that suits Nos. 79 and 117 were barred under Order 2, Rule 2.

8. Prom these decrees appeals were preferred in the District Court and the learned Assistant Judge affirmed the view of the learned trial Judge, dismissed the plaintiffs appeals and confirmed the decrees of the trial Court. From the appellate decrees the plaintiff in suit No. 79 has preferred S. A. No. 601 and the plaintiff in suit No 117 has preferred S. A. No. 602. Both these appeals involve a common question of law and it will be convenient to dispose, as was done in the lower Court, of these two appeals also by a common judgment.

9. Mr. G. R. Madbhavi who appears for the plaintiff in each case contends that the plaintiffs suits are not barred under Order 2, Rule 2. Order 2, Rule 2, so fur as material, provides as follows:

"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. Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

Mr. Madbhavi says that inasmuch as suits Nos. 633, 79 and 117 were heard together, the bar imposed by Order 11, Rule. 2, does not apply. It is not in dispute that suit No. 633 was filed on 13-7-1942, while suits Nos. 79 and 117 were filed on 25-1-1943. It is clear that these two suits were not, therefore, filed together, although suits Nos. 79 and 117 were filed on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document