Facts: The plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) entered into a development agreement in 2014 with the defendants (Applicants) for a housing project on 32 plots of land. Following disputes, a registered sale deed was executed in 2017 for a consideration of Rs. 17 crores. The plaintiff alleged that cheques for the balance consideration were dishonoured. Initially, the plaintiff filed Spl. C. S. No. 482 of 2022 for possession and alternative recovery. During the proceedings, the plaintiff sought and was granted permission to withdraw that suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action to remove formal defects. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed Spl. C. S. No. 216 of 2023, but included additional prayers for specific performance, re-conveyance, and injunctions which were not part of the original suit.
Procedural Posture: The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C. P. C. for rejection of the plaint, citing the bar under Order II Rule 2, limitation, and lack of cause of action. The Trial Court rejected this application, leading to a previous revision where the High Court directed a fresh decision. The Trial Court again rejected the application on 03.02.2026, holding that these were mixed questions of fact and law. The defendants then filed the present Civil Revision Application before the Bombay High Court.
Issue: Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 based on the bar under Order II Rule 2 (omission of reliefs) and limitation when a subsequent suit is filed after withdrawing an earlier suit with liberty?
Holding: Yes. The High Court held that the subsequent suit was barred by Order II Rule 2(3) and Order XXIII Rule 1(4) because the plaintiff sought additional reliefs without prior leave, and was also ex-facie barred by limitation.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the "liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action" does not permit a plaintiff to include additional reliefs that were available but omitted in the first suit without specific leave under Order II Rule 2(3). By comparing the two plaints, the Court found the cause of action identical but the prayers significantly expanded. Furthermore, on limitation, the Court observed that the first suit becomes "non-existent" for the purpose of calculating limitation under Order XXIII Rule 2. Based on the plaintiff's own averments regarding cheque dishonour in 2019, the 2023 suit was filed beyond the three-year period prescribed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasized that when a bar is evident from a "meaningful reading" of the plaint, the Trial Court cannot defer the decision by calling it a mixed question of fact and law.