AI Overview...
- Order 2 Rule 2 CPC - Main points and insights:
-
The provision bars subsequent suits if they involve the same cause of action and parties as earlier suits, preventing multiplicity of proceedings. Several sources confirm that Order 2 Rule 2 is invoked to dismiss or bar suits that are essentially repetitions or based on the same facts as previous suits. For example, SYNTHETIC PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD VS MANJULIKA BHADURI - Calcutta, S. Govindasamy VS Gajalakshmi - Madras, Pritpal Singh VS Harmesh Kumar - Current Civil Cases, and Patoji Suryanarayana VS Parvathipuram Municipality represented by the Commissioner, Parvathipuram - Andhra Pradesh highlight that Order 2 Rule 2 prevents the maintainability of subsequent suits when the cause of action is the same as in earlier suits.
-
Applicability and Interpretation:
- Courts have clarified that Order 2 Rule 2 does not override specific or special provisions, such as Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Act, but applies broadly to prevent multiple suits on the same cause of action (SYNTHETIC PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD VS MANJULIKA BHADURI - Calcutta).
-
The provision is also relevant in cases of res judicata, where courts have held that if a suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2, the subsequent suit is not maintainable (S. Govindasamy VS Gajalakshmi - Madras, Pritpal Singh VS Harmesh Kumar - Current Civil Cases).
-
Exceptions and Court's Approach:
- Some judgments emphasize that technical dismissals under Order 7 Rule 11(d) do not necessarily invoke Order 2 Rule 2, especially if the suit is otherwise maintainable (MADAN LAL ARORA VS SHIV KUMAR - Delhi).
-
Courts also consider whether the second suit was filed with permission or whether the causes of action are genuinely different, which can affect the applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 (Parma Nand VS Mani Ram Aggarwal - Delhi, Dilipkumar Bherumal Kucheriya VS Subhashchandra Nemichand Kucheriya - Bombay).
-
Analysis and Conclusion:
- The general consensus is that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC acts as a bar to subsequent suits involving the same cause of action and parties, preventing multiplicity and ensuring finality of judgments. However, it does not override specific statutory provisions unless explicitly stated. Courts have consistently applied this rule to dismiss suits that are repetitive or barred by previous judgments, maintaining judicial efficiency (S. Gananatha Perumal VS S. Valliappan - Madras, Jeevan Dhara Womens Community Trust VS State Bank of India - Orissa).
References: - SYNTHETIC PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD VS MANJULIKA BHADURI - Calcutta - MADAN LAL ARORA VS SHIV KUMAR - Delhi - Parma Nand VS Mani Ram Aggarwal - Delhi - S. Govindasamy VS Gajalakshmi - Madras - Pritpal Singh VS Harmesh Kumar - Current Civil Cases - ADISHWAR KUMAR JAIN VS SARITA GUPTA - Delhi - Patoji Suryanarayana VS Parvathipuram Municipality represented by the Commissioner, Parvathipuram - Andhra Pradesh - S. Gananatha Perumal VS S. Valliappan - Madras - Dilipkumar Bherumal Kucheriya VS Subhashchandra Nemichand Kucheriya - Bombay - Jeevan Dhara Womens Community Trust VS State Bank of India - Orissa
Search Results for "Order 2 Provision 2 Cpc"
1998 0 Supreme(Cal) 115 • India - Calcutta
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
Whether the amended provision of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC overrides the special provision of section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises ... The court held that the amended provision of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC does not override the special provision of section 17 (2) of the ... of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC? ... (b)whether West Bengal Premises....
2007 0 Supreme(Del) 644 • India - Delhi
SWATANTER KUMAR, H.R.MALHOTRA
Trial Court justified in rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit under Order ... 2, the suit should be heard and finally decided by the Court and dismissal on technical ground would not attract this provision. ... We do not find any error in the approach of the learned trial court in rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the code as the subsequent suit being barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the....
2012 0 Supreme(Del) 887 • India - Delhi
VALMIKI J.MEHTA
The issue was not of applicability of provision of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC but of the subsequent suit being filed without permission to ... Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the applicability of provision of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC of seeking permission to ... Order 2 Rule 2 CPC - Suit for Declaration, Possession and Injunction - Section 96 CPC - [SUMMARY OF AC....
2007 0 Supreme(Mad) 123 • India - Madras
A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was barred under the principles of res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2(3) of CPC ... Court that the suit of the plaintiff was not barred by res judicata is sustainable in law, and whether the suit is barred under the provision ... ... ii) Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Order 2 Rule #HL_ST....
• India - Current Civil Cases
K.KANNAN
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC will be a bar. ... (A) Civil Procedure Code 1908—Order 2 Rule 2—Bar under Order 2 Rule 2, is attracted to a subsequent suit which seeks a relief which ... 2 Rule 2 CPC does not arise at all. ... In my view, it is a wrong understanding of the provision of Order 2 Rule #HL_S....
2017 0 Supreme(Del) 198 • India - Delhi
DEEPA SHARMA
Specific Performance - Barred Suit - Order 2 Rule 2 CPC - [Order 2 Rule 2] - The court discussed the provisions of Order 2 Rule ... Final Decision: The court held that the present suit for specific performance was barred under the provision of Order 2 Rule ... The court also emphasized the provisions of Order 2#HL_E....
1974 0 Supreme(AP) 142 • India - Andhra Pradesh
RAMACHANDRA RAJU
OF ORDER 2 RULE 2 CPC - WHETHER SUITS ARE MAINTAINABLE. ... earlier suits and in the present suits was the same, viz. the illegality of the levy made by the municipality, and therefore the provision ... 2. Whether the suits were maintainable under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC? Ratio Decidendi: 1. ... The provision in Order 2, rule 2 coupled with ....
2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 2733 • India - Madras
S.PALANIVELU
Hence, there is no legal impediment to reach a conclusion that the present suit is barred by the provision Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. ... R.2 CPC. ... Two statutory requirements as per order 2 Rule 2 CPC that the existence of causes of action for the subsequent suit at the time of ... , the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC#H....
2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1078 • India - Bombay
T.V.NALAWADE
Thus, there is no force in the contention that present suit is barred due to the provision of Section 11 of CPC or provision of Order ... 2, Rule 2 of CPC. ... of Section 11, Order II, Rule 2, Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC, this Court observed that the second suit on the basis of cause of action ... Thus, there is no force in the contention that present suit is barred due to the provision#HL....
2015 0 Supreme(Ori) 381 • India - Orissa
BISWANATH RATH
(2), CPC has rightly understood the provision contains in Order 1, Rule 10(2), CPC and has thus rightly arrived at a conclusion ... CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 (2) - Addition as parties in respective suits for proper adjudication of the matter ... - Application rejected by trial court - C.M.P. - Provision of law given a power to the Court to consider an application at the instance ... It is under t....
Filter by Legal Phrase
