Bar of filing subsequent suit on same cause of action is applicable both during pendency of first suit, and also where first suit is disposed of,

Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. v. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 625
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 
 Or. 2 Rr. 2(2) & (3) - Omission to claim one out of many reliefs that could have been claimed in suit - Bar of raising
same in subsequent suit - Applicability - Held, subsequent suit is not permissible when cause of action for later
(subsequent) suit is the same as in first suit, unless leave of court is obtained in first suit as to filing of subsequent suit for
omitted relief - Suit claiming relief to which plaintiff may become entitled at a subsequent point of time - Maintainability -
Claim for relief in question if ripe or mature - Determination of, and relevance - Two suits (first suits) filed for permanent
injunction restraining defendant-appellant from alienating and encumbering suit properties for which there was

agreement to sell with plaintiff-respondent - Subsequently, plaintiff-respondent filed two more suits (second suits) seeking
relief of specific performance of said agreements - Maintainability - Objection that cause of action being the same for
both sets of suits, plaintiff-respondent ought to have claimed both reliefs in first set itself and hence subsequent set of
suits were not maintainable - Tenability - High Court in revision permitting subsequent suits holding that cause of action
to seek relief of specific performance had not matured as on date of first set of suits and first set of suits were not
disposed of - Legality - Held, in instant case, prior to filing of first set of suits, plaintiff-respondent was well aware of
intention of defendant-appellant that he would not honour said agreements to sell and that fact was also brought out in
first set of suits - Thus, cause of action for filing first suits' relief of permanent injunction also furnished cause of action to
sue for relief of specific performance - Also, though respondent-plaintiff prayed for leave of court to file suit for specific
performance at a later stage, same was not granted - Further, plea that relief of specific performance was not claimed in
first set of suits since said claim was premature as on date of filing of first set of suits rejected, since there is no bar to file
a suit claiming relief to which plaintiff may become entitled at a subsequent point of time - Lastly, held, plaintiff need not
wait for expiry of due date for performance of agreement for filing suit for specific performance, if plaintiff anticipates
breach of agreement by overt acts of defendant - Thus, held, it was open to plaintiff to incorporate relief sought in
subsequent set of suits (for specific performance) in first set of suits itself - As cause of action for both the sets of suits is
one and the same, held, subsequent set of suits were not maintainable in the absence of leave of court for filing separate
suits for omitted relief - Order of High Court set aside, (2013) 1 SCC 625-A 
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 
 Or. 7, Or. 2 R. 2 and S. 9 - Premature relief - Entitlement and duty to claim - When arises - Claim if ripe or mature -
Relevance, (2013) 1 SCC 625-B 
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 
 Or. 2 Rr. 2(2) & (3) and S. 11 - Omission to claim one out of many reliefs that could have been claimed in suit - Bar of
filing subsequent suit/multiple suits on same cause of action - Object and scope - Held, is to avoid multiplicity of
litigations on same cause of action - Hence, bar of filing subsequent suit on same cause of action is applicable both
during pendency of first suit, and also where first suit is disposed of, (2013) 1 SCC 625-C 
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 
 Or. 2 R. 2 - Applicability - Stage at which prior suit is at - Relevance - Disposal of first suit, held, not a requirement
therefor Or. 2 R. 2 applies even when subsequent suit is filed during pendency of first suit, (2013) 1 SCC 625-D 

Print Page