A family property dispute arising from an alleged fraudulent Power of Attorney executed on 04.11.2011 by the late M. Sokkalingam in favour of defendant No. 2 (a friend of defendant No. 1-son), through which the Ooty and Pudukottai properties were settled upon the son. After Sokkalingam's death on 13.03.2013, his widow and two daughters (appellants) filed a second suit (O.S. No. 2320 of 2013) before the City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking a declaration that the Power of Attorney was illegal, null and void, and a permanent injunction against alienation of the suit properties. The son-respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the second suit was barred under Order II Rule 2, since the first suit (O.S. No. 4722 of 2012) — filed by the widow and the deceased during his lifetime — had already raised overlapping grievances. The trial court dismissed the rejection application, holding the causes of action and properties in the two suits to be distinct. The Madras High Court, in revision under Section 115 CPC, reversed this, analysing the averments of both plaints in juxtaposition as if they were evidence, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, restoring the trial court's order along with the plaint. The Court laid down a clear doctrinal distinction: Order II Rule 2 does not bar the filing of a suit — it only curtails the right to claim certain reliefs or claims that were relinquished or omitted in an earlier suit. Order VII Rule 11(d), by contrast, applies only where the suit is barred by an express or implied provision of law from being filed at all. Since Order II Rule 2 does not create a legal bar to institution of a suit, it cannot constitute a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). Whether Order II Rule 2 applies must be determined after evidence is led, not at the plaint-rejection stage.
The Court distinguished N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma (Dead) by proposed LRs, (2005) 5 SCC 548 and State Bank of India v. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2014) 3 SCC 595, holding that in those cases the rejection was primarily driven by limitation or absence of cause of action, not purely by Order II Rule 2. The High Court's approach of treating plaint averments as evidence and conducting a comparative merits analysis at the Order VII Rule 11 stage was expressly disapproved.