Supreme Court Bars Second Suit for Specific Performance Due to Earlier Injunction Suit

On November 27, 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in the case of Vurimi Pullarao vs. Vemari Vyankata Radharani & Another, holding that a second suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) if an earlier suit for injunction was filed without seeking leave to file a subsequent suit. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the suit for specific performance and directing the refund of earnest money with interest.

Background of the Case

The dispute involved agricultural land measuring 3 hectares and 5 R situated at Mauje Nayegaon, Taluka Nandura, District Buldhana. The appellant (plaintiff) entered into an agreement to purchase the land from the respondent (defendant) for a total price of Rs. 1,80,000 on October 26, 1995. The appellant paid an advance of Rs. 1,50,000, with the remaining Rs. 30,000 payable at the time of execution of the sale deed.

However, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed, leading the appellant to file a suit for an injunction (Regular Civil Suit No. 216/1997) on October 30, 1996, seeking to restrain the defendant from disturbing his possession. The plaintiff did not seek leave from the court under Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC to file a subsequent suit for specific performance.

On April 30, 1997, the appellant filed a separate suit for specific performance (Special Suit No. 61/1997) before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon. Meanwhile, the earlier injunction suit was dismissed for default on September 16, 2005.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court examined two fundamental legal questions:

• Whether the suit for specific performance was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC due to the earlier injunction suit.
• Whether the plaintiff had omitted to sue for specific performance when the earlier suit was filed, thereby relinquishing the claim.

Arguments of the Appellant (Vurimi Pullarao)

The appellant contended that:

• The suit for specific performance was based on a different cause of action than the earlier injunction suit.
• The trial court did not frame an issue regarding Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, and the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to explain.
• The appellate court should have either framed an issue or remanded the case for a fresh trial.
• As per the Supreme Court’s decision in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (AIR 1964 SC 1810), the defendant must prove the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 by producing the pleadings of the earlier suit.

Arguments of the Respondent (Vemari Vyankata Radharani)

The respondent argued that:

• The appellant was fully aware of his right to seek specific performance when he filed the injunction suit.
• The plaint in the earlier suit explicitly mentioned the agreement to sell and the plaintiff’s intention to file a suit for specific performance.
• The plaintiff omitted to claim specific performance without seeking leave from the court, attracting the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
• The certified copy of the plaint from the earlier suit was marked as an exhibit (Ex. 137) in the trial court, and the appellant never objected to its admission.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the principles of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and made the following key observations:

1. Identity of Cause of Action

The Court held that the cause of action in the injunction suit and the suit for specific performance were identical. It stated:

“The foundation for the relief of permanent injunction claimed in the earlier suit furnished a complete cause of action to sue for the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff omitted to do so and thus relinquished the claim.”

2. Failure to Seek Leave Under Order 2 Rule 2(3)

The Court emphasized that the appellant did not seek leave from the court to file a subsequent suit for specific performance, leading to the bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC.

“Having omitted to sue for specific performance without the leave of the court, the plaintiff is barred from bringing a subsequent suit for the same cause of action.”

3. Validity of Evidence

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the earlier suit’s pleadings were not proved. It noted:

“The certified copy of the plaint in the earlier suit was marked as Ex. 137 without any objection from the plaintiff. The bar under Order 2 Rule 2 was rightly applied.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The plaintiff omitted to sue for specific performance when he filed the injunction suit and did not seek leave to file a subsequent suit.”

Accordingly, the Court:

• Dismissed the appeal.
• Affirmed the High Court’s decision barring the suit for specific performance.
• Directed the defendant to refund Rs. 1,50,000 (earnest money) with 9% interest and return the Rs. 30,000 deposited in the trial court.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces several key principles in contract and civil procedure law:

• Order 2 Rule 2 CPC must be strictly followed: Plaintiffs cannot file piecemeal suits for the same cause of action.
• Leave under Order 2 Rule 2(3) is mandatory: If a plaintiff omits a relief, they must obtain the court’s permission to file a subsequent suit.
• Evidence of prior pleadings is sufficient: Certified copies of earlier pleadings, if marked as exhibits without objection, are valid proof.
• Refund with interest is allowed: If specific performance is barred, courts may order a refund of the earnest money with interest.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vurimi Pullarao vs. Vemari Vyankata Radharani reaffirms the principle that suits for specific performance must be filed at the earliest opportunity. Plaintiffs who omit such claims without obtaining leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC cannot file a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. This ruling serves as a cautionary precedent for litigants seeking enforcement of agreements in civil courts.

Petitioner Name: Vurimi Pullarao.
Respondent Name: Vemari Vyankata Radharani & Another.
Judgment By: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Buldhana, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 27-11-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vurimi Pullarao vs Vemari Vyankata Radh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category