Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN
A.R. Peter S/o Rappel – Appellant
Versus
Sarada Narayanan W/o Narayanan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. This regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’ for short], challenging the decree and judgment dated 19.11.2016 in O.S. No.159/2011 on the files of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, disallowing the relief of specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement, while granting the alternative relief of return of advance amount. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the verdict under challenge, the records of the trial court and the decisions placed by both sides.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred with reference to their status before the trial court, hereafter.
4. The plaintiff approached the trial court seeking performance of Ext.A1 sale agreement dated 26.08.2010, whereby it is alleged that the defendant has agreed to execute sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property, having an extent of 7 ¼ cents, at the rate Rs.55,000/- per cent. According to the plaintiff, at the time of execution of the agreement, Rs
Subsequent suits based on the same cause of action are barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, thus limiting the relief for specific performance in favor of return of advance.
A plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit; failure to do so bars subsequent suits under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
Different causes of action in separate suits do not invoke the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, allowing for claims of specific performance.
![C.M. Divakaran [Died] S/o Madhavan vs K.S. Balan S/o Sreedharan - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2716](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_1.png)
The court held that specific performance is a discretionary relief and denied it due to the plaintiff's delay and lack of demonstrated readiness to perform the contract, resulting in inequity to the ....
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....
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....
Withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh suit negates the bar under Order II Rule 2, allowing claims for specific performance on the same cause of action.
An order remanding a proceeding may ordinarily be made under Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the Trial Court has decided the case on a preliminary point and the Appellate Court ....
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
