Issue addressed in this judgment revolves around the maintainability of a subsequent suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for claiming damages for use and occupation of a property, despite not claiming such damages in an earlier suit seeking possession of the same property.
The case, Bharat Petroleum Corporation vs ATM Constructions [S.L.P. (C) NO. 8292 OF 2021] originated in the Trial Court, where the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in January 2006 seeking possession of a property from the appellants-defendants, whose lease had expired in 1997. Despite the expiration of the lease, the appellants failed to vacate the premises. The first suit primarily sought possession of the property, overlooking the claim for damages for use and occupation.
During the pendency of the first suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed another suit in January 2020, seeking liquidated damages for the period from 1998 until 2019, along with future damages from 2020 until the date of handing over vacant possession of the property. The appellants challenged this subsequent suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) in the High Court, seeking rejection of the plaint.
The High Court dismissed the application, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellants contested the maintainability of the subsequent suit, arguing that the relief for damages for use and occupation, which was available but not claimed in the first suit, should be deemed to be omitted. They contended that filing a fresh suit for the same relief was not permissible under law.
Conversely, the respondent-plaintiff argued that there was no bar in filing a separate suit for claiming damages for use and occupation, especially when the earlier suit primarily sought possession of the property. They cited settled legal principles and precedents to support their position that a subsequent suit with a distinct cause of action is maintainable, even if damages were not claimed in the first suit.
The Supreme Court was tasked with adjudicating on the maintainability of the subsequent suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, considering the interplay of Order II Rule 2 and other relevant provisions of the C.P.C. The central question revolved around whether the subsequent suit was barred under law due to the omission of claiming damages in the earlier suit and whether the principles of res judicata applied in this context.
The respondent-plaintiff claimed absolute ownership of the property, which was originally owned by T. Padmanabhan, T. Sethuraman, and T. Gopinath. The property had been leased to M/s Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. until 1997, after which the lease expired. The respondent-plaintiff acquired the property from Mrs. S. Bharwani, who had purchased it at an auction. The appellants-defendants, the successors of the lessee company, were in possession of the property after the lease expired.
In the first suit, filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the claim was for possession of the property only. However, in a subsequent suit filed in 2010, the respondent sought damages for the use and occupation of the property from 1998 onwards, after the lease had expired. The appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) to reject the plaint, arguing that the subsequent suit for damages was not maintainable as it involved a different cause of action from the first suit for possession.
The court upon determining whether the subsequent suit for damages was maintainable considering the difference in cause of action from the first suit for possession examined Order II Rule 2 of the C.P.C., which deals with the joinder of causes of action, and analyzed previous case law on similar matters.
The court referenced the judgment in Ram Karan Singh v. Nakchhad Ahir, where it was held that the cause of action for recovery of possession is not necessarily identical to the cause of action for recovery of mesne profits, and that a claim for mesne profits accrues from day to day. The court also considered the judgment in Sadhu Singh’s case, which ruled that Order II Rule 2 of the C.P.C. does not bar a subsequent suit for mesne profits if those accrued profits had not been included in an earlier suit for possession.
Applying these principles to the present case, the court held that the subsequent suit for damages for use and occupation of the property was maintainable. It reasoned that possession and damages for use and occupation are two different causes of action, and since the claims involve different considerations for adjudication, the second suit was permissible. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court’s decision to reject the application to reject the plaint.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
Click here to view the judgment
