Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 524
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri
Civil Appeal Nos. 10531-10532 of 2013
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
GRACURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. – Respondent
Decided on : 22.11.2013
For the Appellant : Mr. C.U. Singh, learned Senior Counsel
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 2, R. 2 — If a plaintiff is entitled to seek reliefs against the defendant in respect of the same cause of action — The plaintiff cannot split up the claim so as to omit one part to the claim and sue for the other — And if the cause of action is same, the plaintiff should place all his claims before the Court in one suit — Or. 2, R. 2, Civil Code is based on the cardinal principle that defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause — Thus, respondent is not entitled to split the cause of action into parts by filing separate suits. (Paras 11, 15)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 2, R. 2(2) — Provisions of — Object of — To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and not to vex the parties over and again in a litigative process — Object enunciated in Or. 2, R. 2, CPC is laudable and it has a larger public purpose to achieve by not burdening the court with repeated suits. (Para 15)
¼v½ nhokuh izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908] vkns’k 2] fu;e 2 & vxj i{kdkj gdnkj gS izfroknh ds fo#) vuqnku dk leku okn gsrqd ds laca/k esa & rc i{kdkj nkos dks fo[kafMr ugha dj ldrk fd nkos ds ,d Hkkx dks yksi dj ns o vU; ds fy, okn djs & vxj okn gsrqd leku gS rc i{kdkj dks vius lHkh nkos] ,d gh okn esa U;k;ky; ds le{k is’k djus pkfg, & vkns’k 2] fu;e 2] nhokuh lafgrk ds eq[; fl)k¡r ij vk/kkfjr gS fd izfroknh dks ,d gsrq ds fy, nks ckj rax ugha fd;k tk ldrk & bl izdkj izfroknh }kjk okn gsrqd dks Hkkxksa esa fo[kafMr dj fHké okn nk;j djus dk vf/kdkj ughaA
¼izLrj 11] 15½
¼c½ nhokuh izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908] vkns’k 2] fu;e 2¼2½ & izko/kku & mn~ns’; & dk;Zokfg;ksa ds ckgqY; dks jksdus ds fy, vkSj i{kksa dks ckj&ckj okn izfØ;k esa rax u dj ikuk & vkns’k 2] fu;e 2 esa Li”V ‘kCnksa esa mn~ns’; iz’kaluh; gS ftldk fo’kky yksd mn~ns’; gS U;k;ky; dks lrr oknksa ds Hkkj ls nwj djukA ¼izLrj 15½
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. — Leave granted.
2. We are, in this case, concerned with the applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the CPC”) in respect of two suits filed by the respondent, one in the Original side of the Delhi High Court and another before the District Court, Delhi. Original Suit No.1145 of 2003 was filed by the respondent herein on 15.05.2003 for recovery of an amount of Rs.44,30,994 against the appellant bank and its officers towards the amount of Letter of Credit issued by Credit Du Nord, Paris (CDN) and towards interest for the delay in receipt of payment from BNP – Paribas S.A., Ivry-Sur-Scine (BNP) with cost pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
3. Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 was also filed by the respondent on 21.05.2003 claiming damages of Rs.3,09,000/- with cost and pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum against bank and its officers for withdrawing credit facility on 23.03.2002. Notice was issued to the bank and its officers by the District Court, Delhi.
4. The bank and its officers then filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 before the District Court, Delhi for rejection of the plaint in the suit for damages on the ground that the same is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The District Court elaborately heard the matter and after perusing the plaints, averments in both the suits as well as the reliefs sought for, came to the conclusion that the cause of action in both the suits was same and the relief sought for in Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 could have been claimed by the plaintiff in the Suit No.1145 of 2003 filed before the Delhi High Court. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 was, therefore, allowed, holding that the latter suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2, CPC and plaint was accordingly rejected.
5. The respondent, aggrieved by the said order, filed RFA No.490 of 2006 before the Delhi High Court. The High Court took the view that the earlier suit No.1145 of 2003 was founded on cause of action pertaining to the contract between the parties and the second Suit No.288/03/04 of 2003 was on entirely different footing, being the malicious action of the officers of the bank to withdraw the credit facility because of their animus emanating from the action of the respondent to lodge a complaint before the Ombudsman Banking. Holding so, the appeal was allowed and the order dated 10.05.2006 of the District Court was set aside. Challenging the abovementioned order these appeals have been filed by the State Bank of India.
6. Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the bank submitted that the High Court has failed to consider the scope of Order 2 Rule 2, CPC and committed a mistake in holding that the respondent could not have claimed the relief of damages in Suit No.1145 of 2003, the earlier suit filed before the High Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that the respondent, on the date of filing of the earlier suit, was aware that the bank had declined to grant any further credit facility, in the event of which, the respondent could have sought the relief for damages against the bank and its officers in the earlier suit. Learned senior counsel submitted that, having omitted to claim such a relief in the earlier suit, the Court ought to have held that the respondent had relinquished its claim and is estopped from preferring a second suit in view of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2, CPC. Learned senior counsel also submitted, what is required is, that every suit shall hold whole of the claim arising out of one and the same cause of action and it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to raise the whole claim at the time of institution of the first suit. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the Judgments of this Court in Deva Ram and another v. Ishwar Chand and another (1995) 6 SCC 733 and Sandeep Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and others (2007) 7 SCC 148.
7.
