A High Court ruling reaffirms that the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC cannot be a standalone ground for rejecting a plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC—it must be pleaded, an issue framed, and evidence led. This judgment follows and elaborates Supreme Court precedent, providing binding clarity for courts handling civil suits in similar circumstances.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/2750/2024 of SAVITRI DEVI Vs DAULAT RAM AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010579872024 |
| Date of Registration | 02-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority for Punjab & Haryana Subordinate Courts; Persuasive for Other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Order II and Order VII Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC solely on the ground that the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
At the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the pleadings in the plaint are to be examined, not the defence. The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC must be clearly pleaded and established through framing of issues and cogent evidence in the trial, as determined by the Supreme Court. Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not list Order II Rule 2 CPC as a statutory ground for rejection of plaint. Thus, rejection of a plaint at the threshold solely on the basis of a purported bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC is impermissible. The burden is on the defendant to establish the requirements of Order II Rule 2 after an issue is framed and evidence is taken. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Reaffirmed that Order II Rule 2 bar is not a statutory ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11. Discussed distinction between res judicata and Order II Rule 2. Emphasized that technical bars must be strictly proved; causes of action in both suits must be identical and evidence-led. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Defendant No. 6 (petitioner) moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as allegedly barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, referencing prior litigation between the same parties. The trial court dismissed the application. The petitioner sought revision before the High Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that Order II Rule 2 CPC is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- Bars under Order II Rule 2 CPC must be established at trial through proper pleadings, framing of issues, and cogent evidence.
- Mere reference to prior suits or presumption is insufficient; defendants bear the burden to strictly prove the technical bar.
- Lawyers should not file Order VII Rule 11 CPC applications solely on an isolated Order II Rule 2 CPC objection.
- Trial courts must confine Order VII Rule 11 CPC analysis to the plaint alone, without extraneous materials.
- Res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC are distinct legal doctrines and should not be conflated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by noting that the application sought rejection of the plaint solely on the ground that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, referencing an earlier suit and appeal.
- Emphasized the settled legal position that, at the stage of deciding a matter under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint—not in the written statement or any defense—are relevant.
- Cited the Supreme Court in Alka Gupta v. Narinder Kumar Gupta to clarify the threefold requirements for a successful Order II Rule 2 defense: (i) same cause of action as previous suit, (ii) multiple reliefs possible, (iii) omitted claim for now-sought relief without leave of Court.
- Noted the Supreme Court’s distinction between the principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2, and held that dismissal of a plaint cannot be assumed under Order II Rule 2 without proper plea, issue framing, and opportunity for plaintiff to explain.
- Quoted Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd., which set out that Order II Rule 2’s bar is a technical one, requiring strict proof, evidentiary establishment, and that causes of action must be identical in substance (not merely technicality).
- Ruled that Order II Rule 2 CPC does not constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which deals with specific enumerated grounds.
- Held that the proper procedural route is for the defendant to plead the bar in the written statement, have an issue framed, and lead evidence; without this process, summary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is impermissible.
- Concluded by affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the application and thus dismissed the revision petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Contended the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC as an earlier suit between the same parties on the same cause of action was dismissed and the appeal had declared the defendants owners of the property. Argued that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC should have been allowed for rejection of the plaint.
Factual Background
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Defendant No. 6 (the petitioner) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, alleging it was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC because a previous suit between the parties on the same subject had already been adjudicated. The application was dismissed by the trial court, prompting the present revision petition before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Order II Rule 2 CPC, referencing Supreme Court guidance on its object, essential elements, and the need for identity of cause of action.
- Emphasized that Order VII Rule 11 CPC specifies the grounds for rejection of plaint—Order II Rule 2 is not one of them.
- Clarified that a technical bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC must be pleaded, an issue framed, and thereafter established by evidence.
- Distinguished between res judicata (Section 11 CPC) and Order II Rule 2 CPC, indicating their non-overlapping operation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision closely adheres to and explicates established Supreme Court holdings regarding the interaction between Order II Rule 2 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC.