COFFEE BOARDversusM/S. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

                     [2014] 7 S.C.R. 461


                     COFFEE BOARD                                   A
                            v.
           M/S. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
             (Civil Appeal No. 5527 of 2014)
                        MAY 9, 2014.
                                                                    B
        [CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD AND
            PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.)

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
                                                                    c
     0.2, r.2 - Suit to include the whole claim - Bar to
subsequent suit on same cause of action - Held: 0.2, r.2
requires, if different reliefs and claims arise out of the same
cause of action then the plaintiff must place all his claims
before the court in one suit and cannot omit one of the reliefs     D
or claims except without the leave of the court - Order 2 r.2
bars a plaintiff from omitting one part of claim and raising the
same in a subsequent suit - Bar under 0. 2 r.2 must be
specifically pleaded by· defendant in the suit and trial court
should specifically frame a specific issue in that regard           E
wherein the pleading in the earlier suit must be examined and
the plaintiff is given an opportunity to demonstrate that the
cause of action in the subsequent suit is different - In the
instant case, de facto the parties are the same in both the
suits - In the written statement filed in the subsequent suit the
defendant-appellant has specifically pleaded that the suit was
                                                                    F
barred under 0. 2, r. 2 of the CPC - The trial court also
specifically framed the issue on this point - As regards the
cause of action in the subsequent suit and the relief claimed
therein, in both the suits the fact required to be proved by the
respondent-plaintiff, to succeed in its claims was that on          G
account of the failure of the appellant-defendant to provide the
required /CO stamps as assured by it, the respondent had to
 suffer losses - Suits should have been merged and the two

                              461                                   H
    462      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A reliefs, first being the losses due to delayed shipment and
  second being the costs and losses arising due to the recall
  of the shipment, could have been claimed in a single suit
  when the cause of action was the same in both suits -
  Therefore, trial court correctly held that subsequent suit was
B barred under 0. 2, r.2 - Judgment and order of High Court is
  set aside and that of trial court upheld.

         The respondent purchased coffee at the export
    auction, and shipped 230.4 tonnes of coffee to USA and
    Germany i.e. the members of International Coffee
C   Organization (ICO), on 1st, 2nd and 3rd September, 1982
    without valid ICO certificate of origin. On 22.9.1982, the
    respondent wrote to the appellant Board requesting for
    ICO stamps for export of 230.4 tonnes of coffee and on
    29.9.1982, the respondent wrote to the appellant Board
D   for issue of necessary permit/authority to re-import 230.4
    tonnes of coffee into India. The appellant Board issued
    a show cause notice to the respondent alleging that the
    respondent committed breach of terms of ICO Agreement
    by making false statement. The respondent filed two
E   suits against the appellant Board in the Court of City Civil
    Judge, i.e. O.S. No.3150 of 1985 praying for a decree of
    Rs.5,32,012.31 p. with interest at the rate of 19% per
    annum and costs of the suit and O.S. No. 4763 of 1986
    praying for a decree of Rs.11,70,446.39 p. with interest at
F   the rate of 19% per annum and costs of the suit. The trial
    court decreed O.S. No.3150 of 1985 with costs and
    interest at 6% per annum. However, O.S. No. 4763 of 1986
    was dismissed. The appellant Board filed R.F.A. No.901
    of 2002; whereas the respondent filed R.F.A. No.1033 of
G   2005 before the High Court, which partly allowed the
    appeal filed by the respondent and partly decreed O.S.
    No. 4763 of 1986 filed by-U.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

H         HELD: 1.1. From a plain reading of 0. 2, r. 2 CPC, it
 COFFEE BOARD v. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 463


·emerges that if different reliefs and claims arise out of the A
 same cause of action then the plaintiff must place all his
 claims before the court in one suit and cannot omit one
 of th~ reliefs or. claims except without the leave of the
 court. Order 2 r.2 bars a plaintiff from omitting one part
 of claim and raising the same in a subsequent suit. The B
 bar of 0. 2, r. 2 comes into operation where the cause of
 action on which the previous suit was filed, forms the
 foundation of the subsequent suit; and when the plaintiff
 could have claimed the relief sought in the subsequent
 suit, in the earlier suit; and both the suits are between the c
 same parties:· Furthermore, the bar under 0. 2 r.2 must be
 specifically pleaded by the defendant in the suit and the
 trial court should specifically frame a specific issue in that
 regard wherein the pleading in the earlier suit must be
 examined and the plaintiff is given an opportunity to D
 demonstrate that the cause of action in the subsequent
 suit is different. [paras 10-11) [470-D-E; 471-B-D]
     Deva Ram & Anr. vs. /shwar Chand & Anr. 1995 (4)
Suppl. SCR 369 = (1995) 6 SCC 733; Atka Gupta v.
Na render Kumar Gupta 2010 (11) SCR 756 = (2010) 10 SCC           E
141; Gurbux Singh vs. Bhoorala/ 1964 SCR 831 =AIR 1964
SC 1810 - relied on.

     Lachmi vs. Bhul/i ILR (1927) 8 Lah 384 - referred to.

     1.2. The courts in order to determine whether a suit         F
is barred by 0. 2 r.2, must examine the cause of action
pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaints filed in the relevant
suits. Considering the technicality of the plea of 0. 2 r. 2,
both the plaints must be read as a whole to identify the
cause of action, which is necessary to establish a claim          G
or necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed.
Therefore, after identifying the cause of action if it is found
that the cause of action pleaded in both the suits is
identical and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit
                                                                  H
    464      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2014] 7 S.C.R.

A could have been pleaded in the earlier suit, then the
  subsequent suit is barred by 0. 2 r.2. [para 12) [471-H; 472-
  A-C]

          S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore & Ors. 2007
    (1) SCR 843 = (2007) 11 sec 75 - relied on.
8
       1.3. In the instant case, de facto the parties are the
  same in both the suits. In the written statement filed in the
  subsequent suit the defendant-appellant has specifically
  pleaded that the suit was barred under 0. 2, r.2 of the
C CPC. The trial court also specifically framed the issue on
  this point. Thus, it is evident that the two requirements
  for the operation of bar under 0. 2, r.2 are met. [paras 13-
  14) [472-E-F; 473-8) .

0      1.4. As regards the cause of action in the subsequent
  suit and the relief claimed therein, in both the suits the
  fact required to be proved by the respondent-plaintiff, to
  succeed in its claims was that on account of the failure
  of the appellant-defendant to provide the required ICO
E stamps as assured by it, the 'respondent had to suffer
  losses. The two separate reliefs claimed by the
  respondent are dependent on the same fact being the
  omission of duty by the appellant. The grounds of
  disparity in the suits are the amount of coffee and the
  dates when the same was purchased, however it must
F be noted that the period between August 11, 1982 and
  August 18, 1982 is common to both the suits and there
  are no specific pleadings differentiating the same.
  Furthermore, the suits were filed within a span of nine
  days of each other. [paras 14 and 19) [473-C; 474-F-H;
G 475-A]

      1.5. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that suits
  should have been merged with the claims against coffee
  purchased between July 25, 1982 and September 8, 1982,
H (a period arising from the merging of the two periods
 COFFEE BOARD v..RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. l TD. 465


 claimed in the suits wherein eight days overlapped each A
 other) clubbed together in the same suit from which two
 reliefs, first being the losses due to delayed shipment and
 second being the costs and losses arising due to the
 recall of the shipment, could have been claimed. Both the
 reliefs are being claimed separately in the two suits. This B
 scenario negates the principle of 0. 2, r.2 in absence of
 any explanation as to why the respondent failed to claim
 the relief by way of a single suit when the·cause of action
 was the same in the both. Therefore, this Court is of the
 opinion that the trial court in its judgment dated 17.3.2005 c
 correctly held that in light of O.S. No. 3150 of 1985, O.S.
  No. 4763 of 1986 was barred under 0. 2, r.2 of the Code,
  [paras 20-21) [475-A-E]        ·
!
      1.6. The High Court has misapp;·eciated the facts in
  the light of 0. 2, r. 2 of the Code and thereby the D
  reasoning of the High Court cannot be sustained in the
  eye of law. O.S.No.4763 of 1986 is barred. The judgment
  and order of the High Court is set aside and the order of
  the trial court upheld. [para 22) [475-E-F]
                                                                 E
                    Case Law Reference :
     ILR (1927) 8 Lah 384       referred to       para 10
     1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 369 relied on            para 10
     2010 (11) SCR 756          relied on         para 10        F

     1964 SCR 831               relied on         para 11
                                                            ..
     2007 (1) SCR 843           relied on         para 12
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
                                                            -    G
5527 of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2011 in RFA
No. 1033/2005 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
     '
     A. Subba Rao, K.L.D.S. Vinober for the Appellant.           H
     466      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014} 7 S.C.R. ·

A         · Meenakshi Chauhan, Gaurav Nair (For K.J. John & Co.)
    · for the Respondent.

                                         .
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
          2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order
     dated December 19, 2011 passed by the High Court of
     Karnatqka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.1033 of
     2005 partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein
c    and partly decreeing the Original Suit being O.S. No. 4763 of
     1986 filed by the respondent being the original plaintiff. The·said
     original suit was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated
     March 17, 2005.

           3. Pre-liberalization, till 1996 all the coffee grown in India
0 was pooled with the appellant-Board which is a statutory body
     under the Coffee Act, 1942. The appellant-Board (herei~fter
     referred to as "Board") marketed the pooled coffee and
     distributed the net realization to the growers in proportion the
     quantity pooled by them. The Board marketed the pooled coffee
E    by means of auctions and separate auctions were held for
     export and domestic market. Only registered exporters are
     allowed to participate in the said auctions and the successful
     bidders amongst them enter into contracts with the Board for
     the purchase of the coffee. The Board is a member of the
F    International Coffee Organization (hereinafter referred to as
     "ICO") which is the main intergovernmental organization
     controlling and regulating the global coffee export and import.
     Majority of the coffee growing and consuming countries are
     members of the ICO. The import and export of coffee is
G    regulated by ICO by fixing quotas on the member countries in
     accordance with the quarftum •produced. As per the then
     International Coffee Agreement of 1983 the export quota system
     was supported by an obligatory system of controls. Each export
     by a Member was covered by a Certificate of Origin. Importing
H    Members did not admit coffee from Members unless the
    COFFEE BOARD v. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 467
            [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
Certificate was validated by coffee export stamps issued by the      A
Organization. When quotas were in effect importing Members
were required to limit their imports from non-members and
exports to non-members were closely monitored. •

      4. Accordingly, India being a member of ICO through the        B
.Board was subject to the same agreement and as per the fixed
 quota for exporting coffee the Board received stamps from ICO
 for each quarter through State Bank of India. Thus, the Board
·subject to 100 rules and regulations regulated the coffee
 production and marketing in India by accordingly distributing       C
 stamps to the exporters who had successfully purchased coffee
 from the auctions. The respondent Mis. Ramesh Exports Pvt.
 Ltd. being the original plaintiff was registered with the Board
 as an exporter during the coffee year October 1, 1981 to
 September 30, 1982.
                                                                     D
      5. In this backdrop, the fpcts leading to the present appeal
.are as ·under:

      5.1. On August 24, 1980, the appellant Board sent the
lTerms and Conditions of Sale of Coffee in the Course of E
 Export', after amendment of certain clauses, to all the registered
 exporters of coffee. On October 9, 1980 the appellant Board
 issued a Circular regarding introductio_n of Coffee Export stamp .
 system for export of coffee to member importing countries of
 ICO from November 1, 1980. The respondent purchased coffee-
1at"the export auction. The respondent shipped 230.4 tonnes of      F
 coffee to USA and Germany who were members of ICO, on 1st,
 2nd and 3rd Septembsr, 1982 without valid ICO ·certificate of
 origin. Qn September 22, 1982, the respondent wrote to the
 appellant'Board requesting for ICO stamps for export of 230.4
 tonnes of coffee and on September 29, 1982, the respondent G
 wrote to the appellant Board for issue of necessary permit/
 authority to re-import 230.4 tonnes of coffee into India. The
 appellant Board issued a show cause notice to the respondent
 alleging that the respondent has committed breach of terms of
                                                                    H
    468     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A ICO Agreement by making false statement. The respondent
  replied to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent
  filed two suits against the appellant Board in the Court of City
  Civil Judge, Bangalore, one being O.S. No.3150 of 1985
  praying for a decree of Rs.5,32,012.31 p. with interest at the
B rate of 19% per annum and costs of the suit and another suit
  be·ing O.S. No. 4763 of 1986 praying for a decree of
  Rs.11, 70,446.39 p. with interest at the rate of 19% per annum
  and costs of the suit. The appellant Board resisted the sµits and
  denied the claims made by the respondent.
c      5.2. By judgment dated February 14, 2002, the Trial Court
  decreed O.S. No.3150 of 1985 with costs and interest at 6%
  per annum. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
  February 14, 2002 passed by the Trial Court, the appellant
  Board filed R.F.A. No.901 of 2002 before the High Court of
D Karnataka. However, the other suit being O.S. No. 4763 of
  1986 was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment dated
  March 17, 2005 and aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed
  R.F.A. No.1033 of 2005 before the High Court of Karnataka.
  After considering the submissions of both the parties, the High
E Court partly allowed the regular first appeals. Aggrieved by the
  judgment and order dated December 19, 2011 passed by the
  High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal
  No.1033 of 2005, the appellant Board has come up before this
  Court.
F
       6. The case of theI appellant before us is based on two
  grounds. Firstly, it has been contended by the learned counsel
  appearing for the appellant that the High Court has incorrectly
  held that the Original Suit being O.S. No.4763 of 1986 is not
G barred by the provisions of Rule 2 of Order 2 of the Code of
  Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").
  In support of the same, it has been submitted by the learned
  d'o,unsel that the High Court incorrectly determined the above
  without considering the specific pleadings in O.S. No.3150 of
  1985 filed by the respondent, as against the pleadings in the
H
COFFEE BOARD v. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 469
        [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
orig!nal suit being O.S. No.4763 of 1986. It was further              A
submitted that the High Court also did not consider the cogent
findings of the judgment dated March 17, 2005 passed by the
Trial Court in O.S. No.4763 of 1986.

     7. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for           8
the appellant is on merits wherein it has been contended that
when the respondent by letter dated September 29, 1982
agreed to re-import 230.4 tonnes of coffee into India which was
exported without ICO Stamps by them in haste and against the
ICO Regulations of which they were aware and which entailed           C
in the debarring of India from the membership of ICO, then they
are estopped from claiming any damages and costs being
freight and other charges arising due tp the re-import.

    8. Havi~g heard the arguments advanced by the COUl']Sel
appearing for the parties and considering the documents on            D
record in light of the ave~ments of the parties, we will first
consider the procedur,al validity of the original suit and w.ould
accord1ngly pfoceed with the merits.

     9. It is the claim of the appellant being the original           E
defendant in the original suit being O.S. No.4763of1986 that
the present suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. The
said provision should be read in context of Rule 1 of Order 2.
The relevant rules are reproduced below for ready reference:

    "1. Frame of suit.-Every suit shall as far as practicable         F
    be framed so as to afford ground for final decision upon
    the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation
    concerning them.                                ,

     2. Suit to include the whole claim. 1 (1) Every suit shall       G
     include the whole of the ~laim which the plaintiff is entitled
     to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff
     may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the
     suit within the jurisdiction of any court.

     (2) Relinquishment of part of claim.-Where
                                      I
                                                a plaintiff
                               \
    4 70       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A          omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any
           portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect
           of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

           (3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs.-A person
           entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same
B
           cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if
           he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all
           such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief ~o
           omitted."

C       10. The above rules are offshoots of the ancient principle
  that there should be an end to litigation traced in the Full Bench
  decision of the Court in Lachmi vs. Bhulli1 and approved bY
             1
  this Court in many of its decisions. The principle which emerges
  from the above is that no one ought to be vexed twice for the
D same cause. In light of the above, from a plain reading of Order
  2 Rule 2, it emerges that if different reliefs and claims arise out·
  of the same cause of action then the plaintiff must place all his
  claims before the Court in one suit and cannot omit one of the
  reliefs or claims except without the leave of the Court. Order 2
E Rule 2 bars a plaintiff from omitting one part of claim and raising
  the same in a subsequent suit. (See: Deva Ram & Anr. vs.
  /shwar Chand & Anr. 2 ). Furthermore, this Court in Alka Gupta
  v: Narender Kumar Gupta3 stated that:

           "The object of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code is twofold. First
F          is to ensure that no defendant is sued and vexed twice in
           regard to the same cause of action. Second is to prevent
           a plaintiff from splitting of claims and remedies based on
           the same cause of action. The effect of Order 2 Rule 2 of
           the Code is to bar a plaintiff who had earlier claimed certain
G          remedies in regard to a cause of action, from filing a
           second suit in regard to other reliefs based on the same
    1.     ILR (1927) 8 Lah 384.
    2.     (1995) 6 sec 733.
H   3.   (2010) 10 sec 141.
 COFFEE BOARD v. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 471
         [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
     cause of action. It does not however bar a second suit              A
     based on a different and distinct cause of action."

     11. The bar of Order 2 Rule 2 comes into operation where
the cause of action on which the previous suit was filed, forms
the foundation of th~ subsequent suit; and when the plaintiff
                                                                         8
could have claimed the relief sought in the subsequent suit, in
the earlier suit; and both the suits are between the same
parties. Furthermore, the bar under· Order 2 Rule 2 must be
specifically pleaded by the defendant in the suit and the Trial
Court should specifically frame a specific issue in that regard          C
wherein the pleading in the earlier suit must be examined and
the plaintiff is given an opportunity to demonstrate that the
cause of action in the subsequent suit is different. This was held
by this Court in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta (supra)
which referred to decision of this Court in Gurbux Singh vs.
Bhooralal" wherein it was held that:                                     D

     "6. In order that a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) of
     the Civil Procedure Code should succeed the defendant
     who raises the plea must make out: ( 1) that the second
     suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on          E
     which the previous suit was based; (2) that in respect of
     that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than
     one relief; (3) that being thus entitled to' more.than one relief
     the plaintiff, without leave obtained from the court omitted
     to sue for the relief for which the second suit had· been           F
     filed. From this analysis it would be seen that the
     defendant would have to establish primarily and to start
     with, the precise cause of action upon whi9h the previous
     suit was filed, for unless there is identity between the cause
     of action on which the earlier suit was filed and that on           G
     which the claim in the later suit is based there would be
     no scope for the application of the bar."

      12. The Courts in order to determine whether a suit is

4.   AIR 1964 SC 1810.
    472       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A barred by Order 2 Rule 2 must examine the cause of action·
  pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaints filed in the relevant suits
  (See: S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore & Ors. 5 ).
  Considering the technicality of the plea of Order 2 Rule 2, both
  tha plaints must be read as a whole to identify the cause of
B action, which is necessary to establish a claim or necessary
  for the plaintiff to prove if traversed. Therefore, after identifying
  the cause of action if it is found that the cause of action pleaded
  in botn the suits is identical and the relief claimed in the
  subsequent suit could have been pleaded in the earlier suit,
C then the subsequent suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2.

        13. In the present case we have found the first suit is
  claimed to be O.S. No. 3150 of 1985 and the subsequent suit
  is claimed to be O.S. No:4763of1986. The first suit was filed
D by Ramesh Enterprises which is admitted to be the Coffee
  Division of Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd. which is the plaintiff in the
  second suit. It has also been admitted by the plaintiff in the
  second suit that Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd. is a wholly owned
  subsidiary of Ramesh Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Both the entities are
E operated out of the same premises and suits were filed by their
  Director who is Mr. T. Thangapalam. Therefore, we are of the
  opinion that de facto the parties are the same in both the suits.
  Having perused the written statement of the defendant being
  the appellant before us in O.S. No.4763of1986 we have found
  that the defendant in paragraph 14(c) of his written statement
F has specifically pleaded that:

          "The suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC as
          the plaintiff having filed O.S. No. 3150/1985 in respect of
          the alleged failure of the board to supply stamps for the
G         coffees purchased by it between 11-8-1982 and 8-9-1982,
          the claim now made must be deemed to have been
          relinquished."


H   5.    c200?) 11 sec 75.
 COFFEE BOARD v. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 473
         [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

    The Trial Court also in its judgment dated March 17, 2005         A
specifically framed the ·following issue:

     "(5) Whether Defendant prove that this is barred as per
     para 14 (c) of the Written Statement?"

       14. It is evident from the above that the two requirements     8
 for the operation of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 are met with and
 what remains to be seen is whether the cause of action in the
 subsequent suit is the same and the relief claimed therein could
 have been claimed in the earlier suit. For the same, both the
·plaints are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.                  C

        15. In the plaint in O.S. No. 3150of1985 being the earlier
  suit, it has been claimed by the respondent being the plaintiff
,therein that the appellant being the defendants failed to ~upply
. ICO Stamps for 268.08 tonnes of coffee purchased by him for · D
, export between August 11, 1982 and September 8, 1982,
: inspite of its assurances leading to delay in the shipment of the
  coffee resulting in losses to the plaintiff. On the basis of the
  same, the respondent claimed for the losses suffered by him
  along with damages. The respondent further averred that the E
  cause of action for the suit arose on various dates when the
  respondent purchased coffee from the appellant in the ~uctions
  held by them on the assurance that the ICO Stamps will be
  supplied by the appellant to them.

    16. The cause of action in the above suit is the failure of       F
ICO to supply stamps to the respondent inspite of its
assurances. The respondent to ensure the success of his claim,
was required to prove that on account of the omission of the
appellant i.e. failure to provide ICO Stamps for the coffee
purchased by them, the respondent suffered losses.                    G

     17. lnspite of the different wording of the plaint in O.S. No.
 4763 of 1986, being the subsequent suit, the respondent has
 primarily claimed that inspite of the assurance given by the
 appellant regarding the ICO stamps by its Circular dated             H
                                                                         ... \\,




     474     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

  A August 18, 1982, the appellant failed to providethe requisite
    ICO Stamps for 230.4 tonnes coffee purchased by it between
    July 25, 1982 and August 18, 1982. That on the basis of the
    assurance of the appellant the respondent started making
    preparations for the shipment and after requesting for the ICO
  B Stamps on August 28, 1982 and waiting for the same, he was
    forced for shipment of the coffee without the necessary stamps
    which lead to the recalling of the ship. That the respondent had
    to bear to and fro freight charges and other costs being the
    damages to importers for delay in shipment as the shipment
. c was called back wrongfl,llly; on account of the omission of the
    appellant for which the respondent is not accountable; and the
    appellant is liable for the cost arising from the recall of the
    shipment. Furthermore, as per the plaintiff, the cause of action
    arose when the circular assuring the availability of stamps was
    issued, when the coffee was shipped and subsequently called
  0
    back.
        18. Though the plaint in the subsequent suit is more
   specific, we however, find that the respondent so as to recover
   the cost of the freight charges and other costs suffered by it,
 E must prove that the appellant was under a duty to provide ICO
   stamps; and its failure to provide the stamps timely lead to the
   coffee being shipped without the stamps and ultimately lead to
   the losses being suffered by the ,respondent.

 F         19. In both the suits the fact required to be proved by the
    respondent (being the plaintiff therein), to succeed in its claims
    was that on account of the failure of the appellant (being the
    defendant) to provide the required ICO stamps as assured by
    it, the respondent had to suffer losses. The two separate reliefs
 G claimed by the respondent are dependent on the same fact·
    being the omission of duty by the appellant. The grounds of
    disparity in the suits are the amount of coffee and the dates
  . when the same was purchased, however it must be noted that
    the period between August 11, 1982 and August 18, 1982 is
    common to both the suits and there are no specific pleadings
 H differentiating the same.· Furthermore, the suits were filed within
- COFFEE BOARD v. RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD: 475
          [PINAKI CHAND.RA GHOSE, J.]
                      .
a span of nine days of each other.                                     A
     20. In the light of the abave, we are of the opinion that suits
should have been merged with the claims against coffee
purchased between July 25, 1982 and September 8, 1982, (a
period arising from the merging of the two periods claimed in
                                                                       8
the suits wherein eight days overlapped each other) clubbed
together in the same suit from which two relief~. first being the
losses due to delayed shipment and second being the costs
and losses arising due to the recall of the shipment, could have
been claimed..
                                                                       c
       21. In the present factual matrix both the reliefs are being
 claimed separately in the two concerned suits. This scenario
 negates the principl~. of Order 2, Rule 2 in absence of any               /
 explanation as to why the respondent failed to claim the relief
 by way of a single suit when the cause of action was the same         D
 in the both. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court
 in its judgment dated March 17, 2005 correctly held that·in light
 of O.S. No. 3150of1985 the present suit is barred 4nder Order
 2 Rule 2 of the Code.
                                                                       E
      22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the
 High Court has misappreciated the facts in the light of Order 2
 Rule 2 of the Code and thereby the reasoning of the High Court
 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The said suit
 (O.S.No.4763 of 1986) is barred. Considering the facts, as
 discussed above, we set aside the judgment and order of the           F
 High Court and uphold the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly,
 the present appeal is allowed and the suit of the respondent is
 dismissed.

 Rajendra Prasad                                     Appeal allowed.   G