Where cause of action and reliefs sought for are quite distinct and not the same res judicata will not apply – HP High Court

Spread the love

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)Order 2 Rule 2res judicata – previous suit for injunction dismissed – maintainability of second suit for possession – defendants No.1 to 3 were in possession thereof with the consent of the plaintiffs and since the permission stands withdrawn by the plaintiffs, through registered notice dated 11.8.1985, as such, the possession of defendants No.1 to 3 is unlawful from the date of withdrawal of consent – perusal of the pleadings in the earlier suit and in the instant suit and the cause of action mentioned therein would show that the cause of action and reliefs sought for are quite distinct and not the same. Indisputably, cause of action consists of a bundle of facts which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to get a relief from the Court. However, because the causes of action for the two suits are different and distinct and the evidences to support the relief in the two suits are also different then the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, CPC will not apply

Jeet Ram Vs Kanshi Ram RSA No. 447/2000 decided on 13.08.2019

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge



  1. 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.


A lets a house to B at a yearly of rent Rs. 1200. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next Post

Delay in filing FIR good ground to quash proceedings - SC

Wed Aug 14 , 2019
Spread the love                    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section […]
Supreme Court of India Important Judgment On Quashing of Criminal Proceedings