Gurbux Singh v Bhooralal (1964)

CPC & Limitation Act · Parties — Joinder, Misjoinder & Non-joinder; Frame of Suit

Facts.

A plaintiff who had earlier filed a suit on a cause of action later brought a second suit for a part of the claim he had not pressed the first time. The defendant pleaded the bar of Order 2 rule 2.

Issue.

Could the second suit proceed, and what must the defendant prove to invoke the Order 2 rule 2 bar?

Held.

The Supreme Court held that to make out the bar, the defendant must establish that the second suit is founded on the same cause of action as the first, that the plaintiff was entitled to more than what he claimed, and that he omitted (without leave) to sue for the rest. On the facts the plea failed for want of proof of the earlier plaint, but the principle stands: a relinquished portion of a claim cannot be sued for again.

Why it matters.

It is the leading authority on Order 2 rule 2 — the rule that forces a plaintiff to bring the whole claim from one cause of action in a single suit — and on the strict proof a defendant must give to invoke it.

📄 Full CPC & Limitation Act notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All CPC & Limitation Act topics