Distinct causes of action requiring different evidence are not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

The Appellant, Castrol Ltd., instituted two separate suits against the Respondent (Sonavane).

The first suit, CS(Comm) 855/2025, was filed on August 17, 2025, seeking a declaration of non-infringement and an injunction against "groundless threats" under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 60 of the Copyright Act

This suit was triggered by a police raid on August 9, 2025, at the premises of Castrol’s distributor following Sonavane’s criminal complaint alleging infringement of his "3P" marks by Castrol’s "3X" marks

The second suit, CS(Comm) 946/2025, was filed on September 3, 2025, against Sonavane and several media agencies (Daily Bhramar, Saksham Police Times, Maharashtra Bulletin, and Google)

This suit sought a permanent injunction against "commercial disparagement" and "tarnishment" of reputation

Castrol alleged that between August 19 and 29, 2025, it discovered that Sonavane was circulating disparaging news articles and YouTube videos regarding the raid on WhatsApp groups

A learned Single Judge dismissed the second suit, holding it was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as the facts were largely known at the time of the first suit and could have been included via amendment

Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, which mandates that a suit must include the whole claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of a single "cause of action" to prevent defendants from being vexed twice for the same cause

Constitution Bench decision in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, establishing that the bar applies only if there is identity between the causes of action, which is determined by the facts the plaintiff must prove to support the relief claimed

Rathnavathi v. Kavita Ganashamdas, holding that identity of pleadings does not equate to identity of causes of action

Cuddalore Powergen Corpn. Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., which states that if the evidence required to support two claims is different, the causes of action are distinct

Order II Rule 3 regarding the joinder of causes of action, noting they can only be united against the same defendants

The Court found that the two suits were predicated on distinct causes of action.

The first suit was a statutory remedy against "groundless threats" of infringement proceedings, requiring proof that Castrol’s "3X" mark did not infringe Sonavane’s "3P" mark

Conversely, the second suit was for "commercial disparagement," a tortious claim requiring proof of damage to reputation through the dissemination of misleading media content by Sonavane and media defendants

The Court noted that the evidence required for both—proving non-infringement versus proving reputational harm via publication—was entirely different

Crucially, the Court observed that the specific act of disparagement by Sonavane (the WhatsApp circulation) occurred or was discovered after the first suit was filed

Furthermore, the Court held that the Single Judge erred in suggesting amendment as a mandatory alternative to a second suit; under Order II Rule 3, Castrol could not have joined the disparagement claim against new media defendants (D3-D5) in the first suit as they were not parties to the "groundless threats" cause of action

The Court emphasized that Order II Rule 2 does not require a plaintiff to combine different causes of action arising from the same transaction, but only all reliefs arising from a single cause of action

The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge and restored the second suit to the file for further proceedings in accordance with law