LI Network
Published on: January 8, 2024 at 11:10 IST
The Karnataka High Court made a notable observation stating that the granting of liberty to file a fresh or comprehensive suit does not give rise to a cause of action, nor can it be interpreted as such.
Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Ramachandra D Huddar emphasized that when a suit is conclusively settled, subsequent suits by any party or those claiming under them must present an independent cause of action.
The Court clarified that only when a plaintiff is permitted under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the CPC to withdraw a suit, they can initiate a new suit on the same subject matter. However, even this new suit is subject to the law of limitation.
The case involved an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against a judgment partially decreeing a suit for declaration, possession, and injunction. The original plaintiff sought various reliefs, including a declaration of certain sale deeds’ illegality, possession of the property, and a permanent injunction.
The subject of the suit was a piece of land in Belagavi. Disputes arose between the plaintiff and the defendants, including a housing cooperative society, regarding compliance with the sale agreement’s terms.
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, leading to this appeal. The High Court observed that the plaintiff was aware of the sale deeds’ existence when filing objections.
However, it noted that the plaintiff should have pursued different courses of action considering the circumstances, like filing a suit for recovery of the balance of sale consideration or specific performance.
As the plaintiff failed to claim available reliefs in previous filings, the High Court allowed the appeal.
The Court highlighted the plaintiff’s omission to seek available reliefs in earlier suits, making the present suit untenable under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC.
