Summary
A later suit for warehouse charges and damages was maintainable despite an earlier possession suit. The causes of action were distinct, the plaintiff had expressly reserved its monetary claims, and leave to institute a separate suit had been obtained. There was no relinquishment or omission warranting rejection under Order II Rule 2 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Issues
- Whether the later recovery suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 because possession had been sought earlier.
- Whether reservation of the monetary claims and the leave granted supported separate proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Order II Rule 2 and Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The distinct causes of action, express reservation of monetary claims and granted leave defeated the asserted statutory bar and request to reject the plaint. (¶¶ 12, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- A possession suit and a suit seeking damages for use and occupation involve different causes of action and considerations. Applying Bharat Petroleum Corporation, the later recovery action was maintainable. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- The plaintiff expressly reserved claims for warehouse charges and damages in the first plaint and secured leave for a separate suit. It had neither relinquished those claims nor omitted them in a manner attracting the asserted bar. The case therefore stood on an even stronger footing than the cited precedent. (¶¶ 12, 17)
- The courts below correctly granted leave and rejected the defendant’s application for rejection of the plaint. No infirmity warranting interference was established. (¶¶ 12, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court’s refusal to interfere with leave for the separate suit and its dismissal of the plaint-rejection application upheld.