124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 SANJAY GUPTA AND ORS.

...Petitioners/Defendants Vs.

ATTAR CHAND AND ORS.

...Respondents/Plaintiffs CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Saurav Bajaj, Advocate and Mr. Devesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate with Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been instituted challenging the order dated 22.01.2026, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs had instituted a suit for recovery on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 07.02.2018. In response thereto, the petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on multiple grounds. It was contended that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, as the respondents had failed to claim all reliefs arising from the same cause of action in earlier proceedings. It was further urged that the plaint was liable to be rejected in view of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC, since a previous suit based on the same cause of action had already been withdrawn without seeking liberty to institute a fresh suit. Additionally, the petitioners asserted that the present suit was not maintainable as it had been filed in contravention of the mandatory requirements under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre-institution mediation/conciliation in commercial disputes. It was also contended that the plaint was defective for want of a duly filed Statement of Truth, as required under the provisions governing commercial suits. The said application was contested by the respondents/plaintiffs; however, the learned Trial Court, after considering the submissions advanced by both sides, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition. The same is being opposed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who have entered appearance through Mr. Vishal Garg and Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, Advocates, upon filing a caveat.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

4. After advancing arguments for some time, both parties fairly submitted that the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has held the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC to be inapplicable on the ground that the present suit was instituted during the pendency of the earlier suit. It was further observed that the Trial Court had not been adjudicated application on this aspect on merits in its proper perspective.

5. Learned counsel for the parties, however, drew attention to the legal position as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Limited vs. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and another, 2025 INSC 73. Placing reliance particularly on paragraph 48 of the said judgment, it was contended that the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court is not in consonance with the settled position of law. It has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no inflexible or absolute requirement that the earlier suit must either be pending or must have been finally decided before a plea under Order II Rule 2 CPC can be raised in a subsequent suit. The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC is founded on the principle that a plaintiff must claim all reliefs arising from the same cause of action in one and the same suit, and the omission to do so would disentitle the plaintiff from subsequently agitating the omitted reliefs. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, it was jointly contended that the finding retu