O2R2:General Principles underlying IN CPC

The object of both the Rules 1 and 2 of Order II is to prevent the multiplicity of suits. Order II Rule 2 is founded on the principle that a person should not be vexed twice for one and the same cause. It is a rule which is directed against two evils i.e., the splitting up of claims and the splitting up of remedies.

What Order II Rule 2 requires is the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in one suit.

“every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action"

However, this must not be misunderstood to mean that every suit shall include every claim or every cause of action which the plaintiff may have against the defendant.

2. Suit to include the whole claim. —

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) Relinquishment of part of claim.—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.

(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs.—A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Explanation.—For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.”

General Principles underlying Order II Rule 2 CPC

The object of both the Rules 1 and 2 of Order II is to prevent the multiplicity of suits. Order II Rule 2 is founded on the principle that a person should not be vexed twice for one and the same cause. It is a rule which is directed against two evils i.e., the splitting up of claims and the splitting up of remedies.

What Order II Rule 2 requires is the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in one suit. However, this must not be misunderstood to mean that every suit shall include every claim or every cause of action which the plaintiff may have against the defendant. Therefore, where the causes of action are different in the two suits, Order II Rule 2 would have no application.

it can be seen that Order II Rule 2(1) reads as - “every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action”, whereas the words used in Order II Rule 2(3) are “the same cause of action”. Despite being so, the words “the cause of action” used in Order II Rule 2(1) must be read to mean “the particular cause of action”. Only on such a reading one can arrive at the inference that where there are different causes of action,

Order II Rule 2 will not apply; and where the causes of action are the same, the bar imposed by Order II Rule 2 may apply. 38.Order II Rule 2(1) requires every suit to include the whole of the claim to which the plaintiff is entitled to in respect of a particular cause of action.

However, the plaintiff has an option to relinquish any part of his claim for the purpose of bringing the suit within the jurisdiction of any court. Order II Rule 2(2) contemplates a situation where a plaintiff omits to sue or intentionally relinquishes any portion of the claim which he is entitled to make.

If the plaintiff so acts, then he shall not, afterwards, sue for the part or portion of the claim that has been omitted or relinquished. It must be noticed that Order II Rule 2(2) does not contemplate the omission or relinquishment of any portion of the plaintiff's claim with the leave of the court so as to entitle him to come

Black’s Law Dictionary states that cause of action is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person

Therefore, where the causes of action are different in the two suits, Order II Rule 2 would have no application

Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal reported in AIR 1964 SC 1810. The principles are as follows:

i. That the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as on which the previous suit was based;

ii. That in respect of that cause of action, the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief;

iii. That being thus entitled to more than one relief the plaintiff, without leave obtained from the Court, omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed