Identical" and Distinct cause of action in the context of CPC

The terms "identical" and "distinct" in the context of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) refer to the nature of the cause of action in a legal suit. Understanding these terms is crucial in determining whether subsequent suits are barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

Identical Cause of Action:

A cause of action is considered "identical" if the facts and circumstances that give rise to the plaintiff's right to sue are the same in both the original and subsequent suits. This means that the claim in the subsequent suit should have been included in the original suit as it arises from the same transaction or occurrence.

• Example: If a tenant fails to pay rent and also continues to occupy the premises unlawfully, and the landlord files a suit for recovery of rent without including a claim for possession, both claims arise from the same cause of action — the tenant's breach of tenancy terms. Hence, the cause of action is identical.

Distinct Cause of Action:

A cause of action is considered "distinct" when the facts and circumstances giving rise to the plaintiff's right to sue are different from those in the original suit. In this case, the subsequent suit is based on a separate and independent cause of action.

• Example: If the landlord initially sues for arrears of rent based on non-payment and, later on, sues for possession based on a different ground, such as the tenant's illegal subletting or causing damage to the property, the causes of action are distinct.

Landmark Judgment:

The most cited landmark judgment on this issue is Naba Kumar Hazra vs Radhashyam Mahish (1931).

Naba Kumar Hazra vs Radhashyam Mahish (1931)

• Facts: In this case, the plaintiff initially filed a suit for specific performance of a contract. Later, the plaintiff filed a subsequent suit for damages due to the defendant's failure to comply with the contract.
• Judgment: The Privy Council held that since both the suits arose out of the same cause of action (the breach of contract), the second suit for damages was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The court emphasized that the plaintiff should have included the claim for damages in the original suit for specific performance, as the causes of action were identical.

Key Takeaway from the Judgment:

• The judgment underscored that if the cause of action is the same in both suits, the plaintiff cannot split the claims and file separate suits. If the cause of action is identical, the subsequent suit would be barred. However, if the cause of action is distinct, the subsequent suit would not be barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

Conclusion:

To determine whether subsequent suits are barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, it is essential to assess whether the cause of action in the subsequent suit is identical to or distinct from the cause of action in the original suit. An identical cause of action involves the same set of facts and circumstances, whereas a distinct cause of action arises from a separate transaction or occurrence. The landmark judgment in Naba Kumar Hazra vs Radhashyam Mahish remains a guiding authority in interpreting these terms.