Suit to include the whole claim
Full Text
(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.
Illustration: A lets a house to B at a yearly rent of Rs. 1,200. The rent for the whole of the years 1905, 1906 and 1907 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 1908 only for the rent due for 1906. A shall not afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1907.
Plain English Summary
Imposes a strict statutory bar against splitting of claims or omitting reliefs arising from the same cause of action, precluding subsequent suits unless explicit prior leave of the court was obtained.
Key Legal Elements
- Rule against Splitting of Claims (Sub-rule 2): Omission or intentional relinquishment of any part of claim extinguishes the right to sue for it later.
- Rule against Splitting of Reliefs (Sub-rule 3): Failure to claim all available reliefs arising from the same cause of action bars a subsequent suit for omitted reliefs.
- Leave of the Court Exception: Prior express permission of the court under sub-rule (3) must be pleaded and obtained in the first suit to preserve omitted reliefs.
- Identity of Cause of Action: The bar operates ONLY when the cause of action in both the prior and subsequent suits is identical; distinct causes of action are exempt.
- Proof of Bar: The party invoking the bar must place on record and prove the pleadings (plaint and written statement) of the earlier suit.
Practical Note
The Litigator's Master Guide to Order II Rule 2 CPC: 1. Landmark Supreme Court Benchmarks: — Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (AIR 1964 SC 1810 - Constitution Bench): The plea of Order II Rule 2 cannot be decided in vacuum. Defendant MUST produce the plaint of the previous suit in evidence to establish identity of cause of action. — Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta (2010) 10 SCC 141: Order II Rule 2 applies only where the cause of action in both suits is identical. A suit for specific performance and a subsequent suit for dissolution of partnership/rendition of accounts are based on distinct causes of action. — Virgo Industries (Eng.) P. Ltd. v. Venturetech Solutions P. Ltd. (2013) 1 SCC 625: Where plaintiff filed suit only for permanent injunction when cause of action for specific performance had already matured, without seeking leave under Order II Rule 2(3), a subsequent suit for specific performance is barred. — Sucha Singh Sodhi v. Baldev Raj Walia (2018) 6 SCC 733: Distinguishes between relief of injunction and specific performance where cause of action arose subsequently. 2. Exact Drafting for Leave: If plaintiff cannot claim all reliefs immediately, incorporate in the Plaint: 'The plaintiff craves leave of this Hon'ble Court under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC to sue for the relief of [possession/damages/specific performance] subsequently if need arises'. Ensure the court explicitly records leave in the order sheet! 3. Defense Application Header: 'Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 and Section 151 CPC for Rejection of Plaint as Barred by Law' (attaching certified copy of earlier plaint).
हिंदी पाठ
(1) प्रत्येक वाद के अंतर्गत वह संपूर्ण दावा होगा जिसे करने का वादी उस वाद-हेतुक (Cause of action) के संबंध में हकदार है; किंतु वादी वाद को किसी न्यायालय की अधिकारिता के भीतर लाने के लिए अपने दावे के किसी भाग का त्याग (Relinquishment) कर सकेगा।
(2) दावे के भाग का त्याग।—जहां वादी अपने दावे के किसी भाग के संबंध में वाद लाने का लोप करता है अथवा जानबूझकर उसका त्याग करता है, वहां वह इस प्रकार लोप किए गए या त्यागे गए भाग के संबंध में तत्पश्चात वाद नहीं लाएगा।
(3) अनेक अनुतोषों में से किसी एक के लिए वाद लाने का लोप।—वह व्यक्ति, जो उसी वाद-हेतुक के संबंध में एक से अधिक अनुतोष पाने का हकदार है, ऐसे सभी या किन्हीं अनुतोषों के लिए वाद ला सकेगा; किंतु यदि वह न्यायालय की इजाजत (Leave of Court) के बिना ऐसे सभी अनुतोषों के लिए वाद लाने का लोप करता है, तो वह इस प्रकार लोप किए गए किसी अनुतोष के लिए तत्पश्चात वाद नहीं लाएगा।
स्पष्टीकरण—इस नियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए कोई बाध्यता और उसके पालन के लिए संपार्श्विक प्रतिभूति (Collateral Security) तथा उसी बाध्यता के अधीन उत्पन्न होने वाले क्रमिक दावे, क्रमशः केवल एक ही वाद-हेतुक गठित करने वाले समझे जाएंगे।
दृष्टांत: क एक मकान ख को 1,200 रुपये के वार्षिक किराए पर देता है। वर्ष 1905, 1906 और 1907 का संपूर्ण किराया शोध्य और असंदत्त है। क 1908 में ख पर केवल 1906 के शोध्य किराए के लिए वाद लाता है। क तत्पश्चात 1905 या 1907 के शोध्य किराए के लिए ख पर वाद नहीं लाएगा।