Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd v. M/S Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Anr.
Background
In 2007, Chemplast agreed to buy a plot of land in Cuddalore and registered the sale agreement, but a Tamil Nadu government order had reserved that land for a thermal power project to be developed by Cuddalore Powergen, so the sub-registrar refused to register the actual sale deed. Chemplast first sued only for an injunction to stop interference with its possession. Only after the Madras High Court later quashed the government's land-reservation order in separate proceedings did Chemplast file a second suit: this time for specific performance (to force execution of the sale deed) and to cancel a later sale deed the seller had executed in favour of Cuddalore Powergen.
Decision Breakdown
Cuddalore Powergen argued the second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, which stops a plaintiff from splitting reliefs that arise from a single cause of action into separate lawsuits. The Supreme Court held the two suits were founded on genuinely different causes of action: the first suit was about stopping dispossession while the government ban was still in force, whereas the right to seek specific performance only came into existence once the High Court quashed that ban and cleared the way for registration. Since this cause of action did not exist at the time of the first suit, splitting was not improper. The Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the second suit to proceed to trial on its merits.
Lesson Learnt
The rule that all reliefs from one dispute must be claimed in a single lawsuit does not stop someone from filing a fresh suit for a new right that only comes into existence later, for instance, when a government restriction blocking that right is subsequently struck down by a court.