Order II Rule 2 CPC – Complete Bar to Splitting of Claims

 Detailed explanation of Order II Rule 2 of CPC, including its principle, application, landmark and recent case laws, and distinction from Res Judicata (Section 11 CPC)—suitable for, classroom or exam preparation:

---

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Complete Bar to Splitting of Claims

---

Legal Text:

"Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action."
If he omits or relinquishes any part, he cannot later sue for it.

---

1. Principle Behind Order II Rule 2:

• It is based on the rule of “one cause of action – one suit”.

• A plaintiff must sue for the entire claim (or claims) arising out of a single cause of action in one go.

• Prevents splitting litigation and harassing defendants through multiple suits for the same matter.

---

2. Essentials for Application:

Order II Rule 2 will apply if the following conditions are met:

1. Previous suit was filed by the plaintiff.

2. The cause of action in both suits is the same.

3. The plaintiff omitted or intentionally gave up a part of the claim.

4. The omitted claim was in existence at the time of the first suit.

5. Plaintiff could have claimed the omitted relief in the earlier suit.

---

3. Exceptions:

• Claims that were not available at the time of filing the earlier suit.

• Claims that the plaintiff was legally unable to sue for in the earlier suit (due to jurisdictional limits etc.).

---

4. Landmark Judgments:

(a) S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore (2007) 11 SCC 75

Held: Where a plaintiff could have claimed certain reliefs but did not, and the relief was based on the same cause of action, second suit is barred under Order II Rule 2.

(b) Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta (2010) 10 SCC 141

Held: To apply O2R2, it must be shown that the two suits are based on the same cause of action, not merely on similar facts.

(c) Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand (1995) 6 SCC 733

Held: If cause of action is different in both suits, Rule 2 won’t apply even if the subject matter overlaps.

---

5. Recent Case:

(d) Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1

While primarily a Hindu Succession Act case, the SC reiterated the importance of non-fragmentation of claims, resonating with the logic behind O2R2.

---

6. Distinction between Order II Rule 2 and Res Judicata (Section 11):

Point	Order II Rule 2 CPC	Section 11 – Res Judicata
Scope	Bars second suit on part of same cause of action not earlier claimed	Bars re-litigation of same issue already decided
Focus	Based on relief/claim omission	Based on issue already decided
Stage	Based on claims that could have been raised earlier	Based on claims that were actually raised and decided
Nature	Procedural bar	Substantive bar
Requirement	First suit must have been filed and not included whole claim	Issue must have been heard and finally decided earlier

---

7. Practical Implication for Lawyers:

• Carefully analyze the cause of action while drafting a plaint.

• Include all reliefs that flow from the same cause to avoid a future bar.

• Use Order II Rule 2 as a defense if the opposite party is filing multiple suits on the same cause.

---