The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is the foundation for civil suits in India. It establishes the steps involved in filing and defending a case, ensuring fairness and efficiency throughout the process. Order II specifically deals with how a suit is presented, which includes drafting and filing the initial pleading document i.e. the plaint. Order 2 Rule 2: The Code of Civil Procedure plays a vital role by dictating how comprehensively a plaintiff must present their claims.
In this article we will explain Order 2 Rule 2 for better understanding of all legal aspirants. We will explore the provision, its purpose, and compare it with relevant common law concepts. Additionally, we will study the exceptions, limitations, and practical implications of this rule.
I. Introduction
The CPC outlines the various procedures involved in civil litigation. Order II specifically deals with presenting a suit, which Includes drafting and filing the plaint. Within Order II, Rule 2 holds significant importance. It mandates that a suit must include the “entire claim” a plaintiff has the right to make regarding a single “cause of action.” This seemingly simple rule has substantial weight.
II. Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC: Provision
Rule 2. 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.
Understanding ‘the Provision’:
This rule deals with the concept of “splitting claims” in a lawsuit. Here’s a breakdown of its three parts:
1. Including the Whole Claim:
- Every lawsuit (suit) should include all claims a plaintiff is entitled to make based on the same cause of action.
- A cause of action refers to the specific set of facts that gives rise to the legal right to sue.
2. Relinquishing a Portion of the Claim:
- This exception allows a plaintiff to strategically give up a portion of their claim.
- The purpose is to bring the lawsuit within the jurisdiction of a specific court, often for reasons of convenience or cost.
- Crucially:
- The relinquishment must be intentional and explicitly stated. The plaintiff cannot accidentally omit a claim and then try to sue for it later.
- The relinquished claim cannot be revived in a subsequent lawsuit based on the same cause of action.
3. Omission of Reliefs:
- This applies when a plaintiff is entitled to multiple remedies (reliefs) for the same cause of action.
- The plaintiff has the option to sue for all or any of these reliefs in the initial lawsuit.
- However, if the plaintiff omits to sue for one or more reliefs without the court’s permission, they cannot file a separate lawsuit later seeking the omitted relief(s).
At its core, Order 2 Rule 2 dictates that a suit must include all the “reliefs” or “remedies” that a plaintiff is legally entitled to seek arising from a specific “cause of action.” Reliefs can include various forms of compensation, such as monetary damages, enforcing a contract (specific performance), or preventing relief (injunction).
Understanding ‘the Explanation’ :
- Cause of Action: Remember, this refers to the specific set of facts that gives a plaintiff the legal right to sue.
- Obligation and Collateral Security:
- An obligation is a legal duty to perform something, often arising from a contract or agreement.
- Collateral security is an asset used to guarantee the fulfillment of an obligation. For example, a mortgage on a house might be collateral security for a loan.
- Successive Claims: These are additional claims arising from the same underlying obligation, even if they occur later.
The Explanation Essentially Says:
- If you have an obligation (e.g., a loan repayment) and collateral security (e.g., a mortgage), along with any subsequent claims related to the same obligation (e.g., late fees), these will all be considered one cause of action for the purposes of Order 2 Rule 2.
Example:
- You borrow money from a bank and use your house as collateral security (mortgage).
- You miss a few loan repayments, and the bank starts charging late fees.
Here, the main obligation is the loan repayment, the collateral security is the mortgage, and the late fees are successive claims. Under Order 2 Rule 2 with this explanation, you should include all these claims (loan repayment, enforcing the mortgage, and late fees) in the same suit if you decide to sue the bank.
READ MORE : Possession and Adverse Possession in Indian Property Law
What is a Cause of Action?
This refers to the specific set of facts that gives rise to the legal right to sue. It essentially answers the who, what, when, where, and why of the legal dispute. For instance, in a breach of contract case, the cause of action might involve the formation of a valid contract, its violation by the defendant, and the resulting harm suffered by the plaintiff.
There are two main reasons behind Order 2 Rule 2:
- Preventing Multiple Lawsuits: By requiring the plaintiff to include all claims arising from a single cause of action in the initial suit, the rule discourages the burden and inefficiency of multiple suits for the same matter. This Simplifies the litigation process, saving time and resources for both parties and the court system.
- Ensuring Finality: Order 2 Rule 2 promotes a complete and final decision on the matter at hand. By including all potential claims in the initial suit, the rule aims to prevent piecemeal litigation and ensure that the court comprehensively addresses all aspects of the dispute.
III. Illustration
For those readers who are not law students encountering this concept, it’s important to understand how it applies in everyday situations. Consider the following scenario:
A enters into a contract with B for the construction of a house. B fails to fulfill the contract as agreed upon, causing delays and additional expenses for A. Under Order 2 Rule 2, A’s initial suit should not only seek compensation for the breach but also consider other potential claims arising from the same cause of action, such as:
- Specific performance, compelling B to complete the construction as per the contract.
- Cancellation of the contract and a refund of any payments made.
By incorporating all these potential claims into the initial suit, A ensures that the court considers all available remedies and delivers a final judgment on the matter.
IV. Exceptions and Limitations of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC
Order 2 Rule 2 aims to prevent splitting claims and ensure all related claims arising from a single cause of action are addressed in one suit. However, there are some exceptions and limitations to this:
1. Relinquishing a Claim:
- A plaintiff can strategically choose to give up a portion of their claim to bring the suit within a particular court’s jurisdiction. This allows them to file the suit in a more convenient or financially suitable court
- Crucially:
- The relinquishment must be intentional and explicitly stated. The plaintiff cannot accidentally omit a claim and then try to sue for it later.
- The relinquished claim cannot be revived in a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.
2. Fresh Cause of Action:
- Order 2 Rule 2 doesn’t prevent a plaintiff from filing a new suit if a fresh cause of action arises later, even if it’s related to the original dispute.
- Example:
- Company A sues Company B for breach of contract for failing to complete construction on time (original cause of action).
- The court orders B to complete the construction (specific performance).
- However, B continues to delay completion even after the court order.
In this situation, a new cause of action arises due to B’s ongoing breach. Now, A can potentially file a separate suit seeking:
- Damages for the continuing breach of contract
- Compensation for losses incurred due to the ongoing incompleteness of the construction
This new suit is based on the fresh facts of B’s continued non-compliance with the court order, not just the original delay.
V. Conclusion
Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC serves as a cornerstone principle in Indian civil procedure, ensuring completeness and finality in presenting claims. It emphasizes including all potential reliefs arising from the same set of facts. By understanding its rationale, exceptions, and practical implications, both plaintiffs and defendants can navigate the legal system more effectively.
Note: This article provides a general overview of Order 2 Rule 2. For specific legal matters and guidance, it is always recommended to consult a qualified legal professional.
