Summary
A purchaser sued for injunction after the seller refused performance, expressly mentioning an intended specific-performance suit but obtaining no leave to omit that relief. The Supreme Court upheld the bar against the later suit because the causes of action were identical and specific performance was already available. The earlier plaint had been admitted in evidence without objection, and no prejudice arose from the absence of a specific trial issue. Refund relief was granted to the purchasers in both connected appeals.
Issues
- Whether an earlier injunction suit barred a subsequent specific-performance suit founded on the same cause of action.
- Whether admission of the earlier plaint and awareness of the objection removed the asserted procedural prejudice.
- Whether refund relief should be granted despite the bar.
Provisions considered
- Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Omission without leave of an available relief arising from the same cause of action barred the subsequent suit. The earlier plaint was duly on record. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Held
- A plaintiff who omits an available relief arising from the same cause of action without obtaining leave under sub-rule (3) cannot subsequently sue for it. The specific-performance cause had arisen before the injunction suit. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The certified earlier plaint was admitted without objection following the plaintiff’s own insistence on certified copies. The parties knew the maintainability objection, and the finding of no prejudice was justified. (¶ 15)
- Complete justice required refund of earnest money with nine per cent annual interest and return of the separately deposited balance consideration with accrued interest, if any, in both connected cases. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
Result
Both appeals disposed of, maintaining the bar to specific performance. Earnest sums of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 1,40,000 respectively were to be refunded with 9% annual interest within two months of receipt of a certified copy. Each purchaser was also entitled to return of Rs. 30,000 deposited in court with accrued interest, if any; liberty to seek further directions on default was reserved.