A significant ruling has been made by the Supreme Court in a case related to Commercial Suit No.323 of 2016. This case involved complex legal issues between the parties and raised questions surrounding Order II Rule 2(3) of the CPC. The judgement is expected to have far-reaching implications for future similar cases. Stay informed about this crucial development in the legal landscape.
Facts
- Respondent filed Commercial Suit No.323 of 2016 for recovery of arrears and damages against the Appellant.
- Respondent withdrew O.S. No.101 of 2015 as possession was already delivered.
- Appellant vacated the warehouse and handed over the keys in September 2016.
- Appellant claimed additional deposit, penalty, improvements, and damages amounting to Rs.5,77,03,621/-.
- Both parties filed two suits each, one suit withdrawn, three suits remain pending.
- Trial Court and High Court found suits based on different causes of action.
- Appeal filed against High Court’s judgment and order dated 24.11.2016.
- Appellant filed another Commercial Suit No.160 of 2017 for refund of security deposit.
- The High Court extensively discussed the purpose of Order II Rule 2(3) CPC.
- The High Court noted that the appellant had taken leave to file a second suit against the respondent under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC.
- In the first suit’s plaint, it was explicitly mentioned by the respondent that there were claims for damages and warehouse charges, reserving the right to recover them.
- There was no abandonment or omission of the claim for recovery at any stage by the respondent.
- The High Court’s order was issued on 28.01.2016.
- Post remand, the District Munsif Court, through a detailed order on 15.04.2016, granted leave under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC for the respondent to file a separate suit against the appellant.
- However, upon revision by the appellant, the High Court set aside this order and sent the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh decision, ensuring the appellant’s opportunity for a hearing.
Also Read: City Manager Selection Dispute: Upholding Rules 2014 Over Executive Order
Arguments
- The appellant argued that the commercial suit was barred by Order II Rule 2(2) CPC.
- There was a failure by the Courts below to differentiate between relinquishment of claims and omissions of relief.
- The High Court’s reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court was deemed faulty as it had no relevance to the case at hand.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment by Supreme Court on Divorce and Maintenance Dispute
Analysis
- The judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Petrolium Corporation Ltd. And another Vs. ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd. was heavily relied upon.
- It was held that a second suit for arrears of rent and damages would not be barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
- Para 18 of the judgment stated the position established in the case.
- The plaintiff had reserved rights in the first suit regarding claim against warehousing charges and damages for illegal use and occupation.
- The plaintiff had applied for leave before the Trial Court for filing a separate suit.
- Different considerations for adjudication were present in the second suit filed by the plaintiff.
- The second suit claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was deemed maintainable.
- The impugned order was deemed free from any infirmity.
- Both causes of action were considered separate, making the second suit valid.
- The appellant, facing a recovery of more than Rs. 8 crores, was attempting to delay progress in the suit which has been pending since 2016.
- The judgment in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) was relied upon
- The judgment squarely applies in the facts of the present case
- There is no reason found to take a different view
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Withdrawal of Prosecution: Case of Chhote Singh
Decision
- The application of Arun Kumar and Ors. under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC is allowed.
- The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.
- The costs of the proceedings shall abide the result of the appeal.
Case Title: UNIWORLD LOGISTICS PVT LTD Vs. INDEV LOGISTICS PVT LTD (2024 INSC 515)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007308-007308 – 2024
