Liberty to file fresh suit on same cause of action prohibits additional reliefs omitted without specific leave.

The dispute concerns 32 plots in Latur. A development agreement was executed in 2014, which later transitioned into a registered sale deed on 27.11.2017 for a consideration of Rs. 17 crores.

Several cheques for the balance consideration were dishonored.

The Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) initially filed Spl. C. S. No. 482 of 2022 for possession and, alternatively, recovery of money.

Under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, the Plaintiff sought to withdraw the first suit due to formal defects, which the Trial Court allowed on 21.10.2023 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the "same cause of action".

The Plaintiff subsequently filed Spl. C. S. No. 216 of 2023, adding new reliefs for specific performance, re-conveyance, and mandatory/perpetual injunctions.

The Defendants (Applicants) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint, citing the bar under Order II Rule 2, limitation, and lack of cause of action.

The Trial Court rejected the application, leading to this revision.

1. Whether the subsequent suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC due to the inclusion of additional reliefs not sought in the first suit without leave of the court.

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. Whether the suit is maintainable under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the CPC regarding the scope of the liberty granted for filing a fresh suit.

The court primarily applied Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, which mandates that every suit must include the whole claim the plaintiff is entitled to make regarding a cause of action; any omitted relief cannot be sued for later without court leave.

It relied on Order VII Rule 11(d) regarding the rejection of plaints barred by law.

The court further applied Order XXIII Rules 1 and 2, establishing that a fresh suit filed after withdrawal is a separate proceeding and does not stop the period of limitation.

It referenced the Supreme Court's principles in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Chemplast Cuddlor Vinyls Ltd. regarding the technical bar of Order II Rule 2.

The court referenced Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali regarding rejection of plaints where the bar of limitation is ex-facie evident.

The court observed that the Plaintiff admitted the second suit was based on the "same cause of action" as the first.

The second suit introduced prayers for re-conveyance and specific performance (prayers a, c, and d) that were available when the first suit was filed but were omitted without obtaining leave from the court under Order II Rule 2(3).

Consequently, the Plaintiff is precluded from seeking these additional reliefs.

Regarding limitation, the court determined the cause of action arose when the cheques were dishonored on 21.06.2019. Since the second suit was filed on 01.11.2023, it exceeded the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

The court rejected the Trial Court's finding that limitation was a "mixed question of fact and law," noting that a meaningful reading of the plaint itself clearly demonstrated the suit was time-barred.

The court held that under Order XXIII Rule 1(4), a plaintiff cannot use the liberty to file a fresh suit to circumvent limitation or introduce previously abandoned claims.

Holding on Order II Rule 2: The suit is not tenable as additional reliefs were sought on the same cause of action without prior leave of the court.

Holding on Limitation: The suit is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond three years from the accrual of the cause of action.

Holding on Order XXIII: The Plaintiff is precluded from suing for abandoned/omitted reliefs under the guise of a fresh suit.

The Court ordered the rejection of the plaint in Spl. C. S. No. 216 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.