Suit For Injunction & Possession And Suit For Damages For Illegal Use & Occupation Of Property Are Two Different Causes Of Action; Not Barred Under Order II Rule 2 CPC: SC
The Supreme Court reiterated that a suit for permanent injunction and vacant possession and a suit for damages for illegal use and occupation of a property are two different causes of action which are not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (respondent) had filed a suit for permanent injunction and vacant possession to claim outstanding dues and arrears of storage charges from the appellant. The suit was also filed for a permanent injunction and to hand over vacant possession of the warehouse. Subsequently, another commercial suit for recovery was filed in the High Court of Madras.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale observed, “The case in hand stands on a better footing, inasmuch as, the plaintiff-respondent had specifically reserved its rights in the first suit regarding claim against warehousing charges, damages for illegal use and occupation etc. and further had applied for leave before the Trial Court for filing a separate suit, which leave had been granted. There was neither any relinquishment at any stage, nor omission to claim relief. Both the causes of action being separate, the second suit was clearly maintainable.”
AOR K. K. Mani appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Aditya Kumar Choudhary represented the respondent.
The High Court held that the suits were based on different causes of action and the respondent had properly sought leave to file the second suit under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC. The respondent had not relinquished its claims at any stage, nor was there any omission to claim relief.
The Court relied on the Apex Court’s decision in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd (2023) wherein it was noted that a suit for possession and a suit for claiming damages for the use and occupation of a property are two different causes of action, and therefore, not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The Supreme Court explained that the respondent had specifically reserved its rights in the first suit regarding a claim against warehousing charges, damages for illegal use and occupation etc. and further had applied for leave before the Trial Court for filing a separate suit, for which leave had been granted.
“There was neither any relinquishment at any stage, nor omission to claim relief. Both the causes of action being separate, the second suit was clearly maintainable. The appellant, who is facing recovery of more than Rs.8 crores, is unnecessarily trying to delay the progress in the suit, which is pending since 2016,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Bench held, “We are of the firm view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The judgment in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the respondent squarely applies in the facts of the present case and we do not find any reason to take a different view.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 515)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR K. K. Mani; Advocates T.archana and Rajeev Gupta
Respondent: AOR Rajesh Singh Chauhan; Advocates Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Sandeep Pandey and Gurmehar Vaan Singh
