Bar of Order II Rule 2 under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction

In a hypothetical scenario, a person has been involved in a car accident. The damages are significant, and the victim decides to file a lawsuit against the driver. But what if the other driver, instead of facing one lawsuit, is bombarded with multiple claims – one for property damage, another for medical expenses, and a third for emotional distress? This scenario not only creates unnecessary stress for the defendant but also wastes valuable judicial resources.

The provision of Order II Rule 2 has been enacted in the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) to prevent such situations. It mandates that a plaintiff must present their entire claim arising from a single cause of action in a single suit. The legal provision is aimed at eliminating the multiplicity of proceedings and, at the same time, to streamline the judicial process to provide effective and timely remedies.

Essential conditions for the bar of Order II Rule 2

• The foremost and utmost condition for the application of the bar pursuant to Order II Rule 2 is that the cause of action in both suits should be the same.
• The plaintiff should have been legally entitled to claim such relief in the former suit.
• The plaintiff relinquished to claim relief in the former suit without permission of the prior court. Furthermore, the burden of proof is upon the applicant.
• The applicant has to prove in particular that the cost for the two suits is the same, and for that purpose, he has to file a copy of the plaint as a piece of evidence so that the court can find out the actual cause of action in the two suits.
• There is no presumption in the law regarding the bar of Order II Rule 2, rather, it is upon the defendant to prove the bar by proving the copy of the plaint. If the defendant fails to do so, his objection will be rejected.
• The above essential elements have been provided under the landmark case of Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal[1].

Splitting of claims

• Order II Rule 2(1) and Order II Rule 2(2) deals with the splitting of claims under C.P.C. As per Order II Rule 2(1), the splitting of the claim is barred under the C.P.C.
• For instance, if there is a suit that provides a relief of 30 lacs, can the plaintiff in such a situation split his claim? That is, he institutes a suit of 20 lacs in one court, whereas he institutes another suit of 10 lacs after some time in the competent court. This is known as the splitting of claims.
• The provisions of Order II Rule 2 expressly bar such a situation. Order II Rule 2(1) states that the plaintiff shall include the entire claim in the suit. However, the plaintiff has the discretion to relinquish a part of the claim.

Relinquishment of claim

• If the plaintiff relinquishes any part of the claim arising out of the cause of action, then he is barred from claiming the same in a subsequent suit.
• For instance, in a suit, a plaintiff can claim 50 lacs. However, he decides to claim 20 lacs in the suit. Whereas he aims to recover the remaining claim in another subsequent suit. Such relinquishment of splitting of claims is not allowed.
• Order II Rule 2(2) expressly bars the relinquishment of part of claim. When Order II Rule 2(1) is read with Order 2 Rule 2(2), the splitting of claims is not allowed.

Splitting of relief

• Order II Rule 2(3) deals with the splitting of reliefs. As per the Code, the plaintiff cannot split the relief arising out of the same cause of action.
• If a suit involves multiple reliefs, the plaintiff cannot seek one relief in one suit and another in a subsequent suit.
• For instance, in a suit for breach of contract, three reliefs arise: 1. Specific performance. 2. Injunction, and 3. Damages. In such a scenario, the plaintiff cannot opt for the relief of specific performance and injunction in one suit, whereas he opts for relief of damages in another suit. Such splitting of relief is barred under Order II Rule 2(3).

Purpose of bar of Order II Rule 2

1. Prevent multiplicity of proceedings

Order II Rule 2 effectively prevents defendants from being subjected to the stress and burden of multiple lawsuits arising from the same incident or dispute. By requiring plaintiffs to consolidate all related claims into a single action, this rule eliminates the possibility of defendants being harassed with numerous legal proceedings.

Furthermore, consolidating multiple claims into a single lawsuit can also help to avoid inconsistencies in judgments and ensure that all relevant issues are addressed in a comprehensive manner.

2. Avoidance of Unnecessary Delays and Expenses

Order II Rule 2 significantly reduces the time and costs associated with multiple legal proceedings. Requiring plaintiffs to present their entire claim in a single suit eliminates the need for separate lawsuits arising from the same incident or dispute.

Consolidating claims into a single suit can also help to expedite the resolution of disputes. When multiple lawsuits are pending, each case may require its own discovery process, hearings, and trial dates. By combining these proceedings into a single action, the court can allocate its resources more efficiently and potentially resolve the matter more quickly.

3. Judicial Resource Management

Order II Rule 2 plays a vital role in the efficient management of judicial resources. By preventing a multiplicity of suits, this rule helps to reduce the overall workload of the courts. When plaintiffs are required to present their entire claim in a single lawsuit, it prevents the courts from being inundated with multiple cases arising from the same incident or dispute.

This rule also contributes to a more efficient and effective legal system overall, as courts can allocate their time and resources to address the most pressing legal issues in a timely manner.

Conclusion

Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure embodies a fundamental principle of civil litigation: the consolidation of all claims arising from a single cause of action. This rule not only serves to prevent unnecessary litigation but also enforces the obligation of plaintiffs to approach the court with a clear and complete case. By barring the splitting of claims and reliefs, it upholds the integrity of judicial proceedings, ensuring that all facets of a dispute are resolved in a comprehensive manner. Importantly, it balances the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants by safeguarding against procedural abuse while preserving the right to seek justice. However, the rule demands precise adherence to procedural formalities, placing the burden of proof on defendants to invoke its bar, which highlights the nuanced interplay of fairness and efficiency within civil law. In essence, Order II Rule 2 is not merely a technical rule but a reflection of the broader judicial goal of finality in litigation and the promotion of judicial economy.

[1] AIR 1964 SC 1810.