*Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. V. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. (2025 SC)* This is a very good judgment on O.2 R.2 CPC, and cannot be summarised in one paragraph. Hence, it’s recommended to read it full. 1. O.2 R.2(2) and R.2(3) CPC contemplate two different situations. 2. ⁠O.2 R.2(2) CPC (following from R.2(1)) bars a subsequent suit filed in respect of the particular cause of action for a *claim*, which was omitted or relinquished by the plaintiff in the previous suit in respect of the particular cause of action. This bar is absolute. 3. ⁠O.2 R.2(3) CPC bars a subsequent suit filed for a *relief* which was omitted by the plaintiff in the previous suit in respect of the same cause of action and which the plaintiff was entitled to sue for in the previous suit only. Here the bar is not absolute as the plaintiff can still file such subsequent suit if he had obtained the leave of the court in the first suit for omitting such a relief. 4. ⁠Relying upon *Mohammad Khalil Khan V. Mahbub Ali Mian (1949 PC)*, the correct test is whether the claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon the same cause of action which was the foundation of the former suit. One of the consideration to find out whether the cause of action in the two suits is same or distinct is whether the same evidence would support the claims in both suits. If the evidence required to support the claims is different, then the causes of action are also different. Further, the causes of action in the two suits may be considered to be seen if they are identical in substance and not merely technically identical. What would constitute the cause of action in a suit must always depend on the particular facts of each case, and here the difficulty arises. 5. The cause of action means every fact which will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment [Read V. Brown]. The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence that may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. 6. In order to sustain a plea of applicability of O.2 R.2 CPC in the subsequent suit, the plaint of the former suit has to be produced. Since the plea is a technical one, it has to be established satisfactorily and it cannot be presumed merely on the basis of inferential reasoning. 7. Sometimes, a number of causes of action may arise between the parties out of the same transaction and it is not the mandate of O.2 R.2 that they should all be included in one single suit. What is required is that every suit shall include the whole of the claim arising out of “one and the same cause of action”, and not that all the different causes of action shall be included in one suit. 8. ⁠The object is to prevent the multiplicity of the suits, and that a person shall not be vexed twice for one and the same cause. For the applicability of the O.2 R.2, the status of the first suit is immaterial and hence it does not matter whether the first suit is still pending or disposed of. 9. The plaints have to be read as a whole to determine the applicability of the bar under the O.2 R.2 for the purpose of rejection of the plaint under O.7 R.11 (d) CPC. 10. ⁠In order to apply the bar of O.2 R.2(3), the plaintiff must be “entitled to” the relief he prayed for in the subsequent suit and such relief must also be “available” with the plaintiff at the time of the institution of the first suit. There may arise a situation where the plaintiff may be entitled to a relief, but such a relief was not available at a certain point of time. For example, if at the time of institution of the first suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff was not aware of the intention of the defendant to dishonour the agreement. Here, the plaintiff can file a subsequent suit for specific performance of the contract. 11. ⁠Also, a subsequent suit in respect of a claim which was barred at the time of the earlier suit, but revived later on by an enactment would not be hit by the provisions of O.2 R.2. *Note*: Indirectly, the SC has held that the plaint can be rejected under O.7 R.11(d) CPC on the plea of O.2 R.2 and for that the defendant shall produce the palint in the first suit and the court shall read both the plaints carefully. (*I HUMBLY DISAGREE*: the rejection of plaint is a demurrer claim and has to be established only from the plaint itself…)