JAYANTILAL CHIMANLAL PATELversusVADILAL PURUSHOTTAMDAS PATEL

                          [2017] 1 S.C.R. 829



               JAYANTILAL CHIMANLAL PATEL                                   A
                                   v.
             VADILAL PURUSHOTTAMDAS PATEL
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 3056-3057of2017)
                        FEBRUARY 21, 2017                                   B

  [DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND MOHAN M.
              SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. II, r. 2 - Suit to include
the whole claim - Relinquishment of part of claim - Plea 11/0r. JI, r.
                                                                            c
2 - Sustainability of - Held: Filing of the plaint of earlier suit and
proving it as per lmv is imperative to sustain the plea of 01: II, r. 2 -
Conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the suit instituted by
the appellant was hit by Or. JI, r. 2, cannot be sustained, since there
was no mention that the plaint in the earlier suit was proved
                                                                            D
        Disposing of the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 Filing of the plaint of earlier suit and proving
it as per law is imperative to sustain the plea of Order 2 Rule 2
CPC. Unless that is done, the stand would not be entertainable.
[Para 11] [833-B-C]
                                                                            E
        1.2 On a scrutiny of the entire Judgment, there is no
mention that the plaint in the earlier suit was proved. The
conclusion arrived at by the High Court on the basis that the suit
instituted by the plaintiff-appellant was hit by Order 2 Rule 2
CPC, cannot be sustained. However, the controversy does not
end there. The trial court and the appellate court have adverted            F
to the merits of the case, that is, whether the tenant had
constructed any permanent structure without the consent of the
landlord. It is manifest that the High Court did not advert to the
same. [Para 14] [834-C-D]
        1.3 The matter is remitted to the High Court for proper             G
appreciation of the material on record. If the High Court from
the original records finds that the plaint had been brought on
record and proved as per law, it would be bound to advert to the
plea of Order 2 Rule 2 within the parameters of the said principle.
                                                                            H
                                   829
830            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] l S.C.R.



A     If the plaint has not been brought on record and proved, prayer
      for amendment shall not be entertained to bring the plaint on
      record by way of additional evidence by taking recourse to Order
      XLI Rule 27 CPC. In that event, the High Court shall proceed
      only to deal with the merits of the case, that is, whether the plaintiff
      has made out a case under Section 13(b) of the Bombay Rents,
B
      Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,1947. [Para 15] [834-
      D-F]
             Gurhux Singh v. Bhuora/al AIR 1964 SC 1810: [1964]
             SCR 831; Jichhu Ram and Others v. Pearey Pasi and
             Another AIR 1967 Patna 423 - referred to.
c
                              Case Law Reference
      [1964] SCR 831                    referred to              Para 10
      AIR 1967 Patna 423                referred to              Para 12
             CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3056-
D
      3057 of2017.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2014 of the High
      Court'Of Gujarat in Civil Revision Applications No. 172-173 of2006.
             Ms. Pyo Ii, Somesh Chandra Jha, Ejaz M. Qureshi, Ad vs. for the
E     Appellant.
             Tanmaya Agarwal, Jatin Zaveri, Neel Kamal Mishra, Advs. for
      the Respondent.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F             DIPAK MISRA, J. I. Leave granted.
              2. The appellant-landlord instituted HRP Suit No.686 of 1992,
      seeking pennanent injunction against the original tenant, the predecessor-
      in-interest of the respondents herein, restraining them from constructing
      any permanent structure on the tenanted premises and further from
G     subletting the same or transfer it in any manner. The learned trial Judge
      vide judgment and decree dated 12" Mafch, 1999, partially decreed the
      suit restraining the respondents from subletting or transferring the suit
      premises.
              3. Being grieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant
      preferred Civil Appeal No.79of1999. It is necessary to state here that
H
        JAYANT!LAL CHIMANLAL PATEL v. VADILAL                                   831
        PURUSHOTTAMDAS PATEL [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

the appellant also initiated an action for eviction forming the subject          A
matter of HRP Suit No.1804 of 1998 before the Small Causes Court,
Ahmedabad, on the ground that the respondent-original tenant had erected
permanent structure on the premises without the consent of the landlord.
It is apt to note here that the same is one of the grounds as find mention
under Section 13 of the Romhay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates
                                                                                 B
Control Act, 194 7, (for short, 'the 1947 Act') which is applicable in the
State of Gujarat.
        4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit being hit by the
principle of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as on
merits.
                                                                                 c
        5. The said judginent and decree was assailed in Civil Appeal
No.61 of2004. The appeal arising out of the first suit and the appeal
arising out of the second suit were taken up together and were dismissed
                  .
by the common Judgment      date d 24 <h March, 2006.

          6. The dissatisfaction of the non-success compelled the appellant      D
to file two civil revision applications, namely, Civil Revision Application
Nos.172 and 173 of2006. The High Court by the common order dated
1" April, 2014, dismissed both the civil revision applications.
         7. It is submitted by Ms. Pyoli, learned counsel appearing for the
appellantthat all the courts have fallen into error by applying the principle    E
under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the plaint in
the earlier suit was not proved being marked as an exhibit. Additionally,
it is urged by her that the High Court has not address.ed to the merits of
the case, but has been totally guided by the issue that the suit was barred
by Order 2 Rule 2.
                                                                                 F
         8. Mr. Tanmay Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, per contra, would ~oiltend that the High Court has correctly
appreciated the spirit of Order 2 Rule 7. of the Code of Civil Procedurn
by taking into consideration the finc!.ngo recorded in the earlier judgment
and, therefore, this Court should IIN e1hcriain any attack on the judgment
on the said score. As far as the deHn~ation on the merits is concerned,          G
it is urged by Mr. Agarwal that the anal:;sis made by the High Court on
that score, especially in paragraphs 10 and 10.1, are absolutely
unimpeachable.
        9. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, we have
carefully perused the common order passed by the High Court in both             H,
832             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017) I S.C.R.


A     the civil revision applications. As we find thatthe High Court has adverted
      at length to the facet of Order 2 Rule 2. On a scrutiny of the entire
      judgment, we do not find that there is any mention that the plaint in the
      earlier suit was proved.
              I 0. Jn this context, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn
B     our attention to the Constitution Bench decision in Gurbux Singh vs.
      Bhoorala/ 1• Jn the said case, this Court while considering the issue of
      Order II Rule 2 has opined thus:-
              "6. ..... As the plea is a technical bar it has to be established
              satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on basis of
c             inferential reasoning. It is forth is reason that we consider that
              a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure
              Code can be established only ifthe defendant files in evidence
              the pleadings in the previous suit and thereby proves to the Court
              the identity of the cause of action in the two suits. It is common
              ground that the pleadings in CS 28 of I 950 were not filed by the
D             appellant in the present suit as evidence in support of his plea
              under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned
              trial Judge, however, without these pleadings being on the record
              inferred what the cause of action should have been from the
              reference to the previous suit contained in the plaint as a matter
E             of deduction. At the stage of the appeal the learned District
              Judge noticed this lacuna in the appellant's case and pointed out,
               in our opinion, rightly that without the plaint in the previous suit
               being on the record, a plea ofa bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the
              Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable.

F             7. .. .... Th is apart, we consider that learned Counsel's argument
              must be rejected for a more basic reason. Just as in the case of
              a plea of res judicata which cannot be established in the absence
              on the record of the judgment and decree which is pleaded as
              estoppel. we consider that a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the
              Civil Procedure Code cannot be made out except on proof of
li            the plaint in the previous suit the filing of which is said to create
              the bar. As the plea is basically founded on the identity of the
              cause of action in the two suits the defence which raises the bar
              has necessarily to establish the cause of action in the previous
              suit. The cause of action would be the facts which the plaintiff
 H     'AIR 1964 SC 1810
         JAYANTILAL CHIMANLAL PATEL v. VADILAL                                      833
         PURUSHOTTAMDAS PATEL [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

        had then alleged to support the right to the relief that he claimed.        A
        Without placing before the Court the plaint in which those facts
        were alleged. the defe11dant cannot invite the Court to speculate
        or infer by a process of deduction what those facts might be
        with reference to the reliefs which were then claimed.''
                                                          [Emphasis suppliedj        B
         11. From the aforesaid statement of law, it is clearly discernible
that filing of the plaint of earlier suit and proving it as per law is imperative
to sustain the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Unless that is done, the
stand would not be entertainable.
         12. In this regard, we may refer to the Full Bench decision of the          c
High Court of Patna in Jichlw Ram and Otherl· vs. Pearey Pasi a111/
Another', wherein the Full Bench was called upon to appreciate the
ratio laid down in the case of Gurbux Singh (supra). In that context, the
Full Bench has held thus:-

         "7. These observations are fatal to the defendants' contention in           D
         this litigation. Though the bar of Order 2, rule 2, was one of the
         issues expressly raised before the original court (issue no.5), the
         defendants did not prove the plaint in the previous rent suit. The
         only documents proved on their behalf are copies of the order
         sheets in the execution case (Exts. A and B). Mr. Chatterj i,               E
         however, urged that from certain admissions made in the plaint
         in this litigation this Court should reasonably infer what was the
         nature of the allegation in the previous rent suit, and by this process
         of reasoning decide whether the cause of action in the two suits
         was identical. This approach was condemned by their Lordships
         of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment with these words:            F

             "As the plea is a technical bar it has to be established
             satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on the basis
             of inferential reason;ng "

         Their Lordships condemneci tile action of the learned trial Judge           G
         in that court in inferring ''wilat the cause of action should have
         been from a reference to the pre·>ious suit contained in the plaint
         as a matter of deduction." I must, therefore, reject this contention
         of Mr. Chatterji."                                          ·

 'AIR I 967 Patna 423                                                                H
834             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] l S.C.R.



A             13. Though Mr. Tanmay Agarwal, learned counsel for the
      respondents has made enormous effort to distinguish the decision in
      Gurbux Singh (supra), in our considered opinion, the same is not
      distinguishable. It is mandatory that to sustain a plea under Order 2
      Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant is obliged under
      law to prove the plaint and the proof has to be as per the law of evidence.
A
      We have no hesitation in saying that the ratio in Gurbux Singh (supra)
      has been properly appreciated by the Full Bench of the High Court of
      Patna in Jichliu Ram (supra).
              14. In view of the aforesaid, we are not able to sustain the
      conclusion arrived at by the High Court on the basis that the suit instituted
c     by the plaintiff-appellant was hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. However, the
      controversy does not end there. The trial court and the appellate court
      have adverted to"the merits of the case, that is, whether the tenant had
      constructed any permanent structure without the consent of the landlord.
      It is manifest that the High Court has not adverted to the same.
D              15. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to remit the matter
      to the High Court for proper appreciatim1 of the material on record and
      to deal with the contentions raised by the appellants therein in accordance
      with law within the parameters of the revisional jurisdiction. We may
      hasten to clarify that ifthe High Court from the original records finds
E     that the plaint had been brought on record and proved as per law, it
      would be bound to advert to the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 within the
      parameters of the said principle. Be it noted, ifthe·plaint has not been
      brought on record and proved, prayer for amendment shall not be
      entertained to bring the plaint on record by way of additional evidence
      by taking recourse to Order XL! Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 F    In that event, the High Court shall proceed only to deal with the merits
      of the case, that is, whether the plaintiff has made out a case under
      Section 13(b) of the 1947 Act.
              16. We may hasten to add that as far as the revision arising out
      of refusal of the order of injunction is concerned, it does not deserve to
G     be dwelt upon by the High Court as we do not see there is any justification
      to do so. The conclusion on that score by the High Court is justified.
      Therefore, the civil appeal arising out of Civil Revision Application No.172
      of 2006, stands dismissed. What is required to be deliberated by the
      High Court is whether the grounds urged for eviction have been
      established by the landlord or not. That is the subject matter of Civil
H
             JAYANTILAL CHIMANLAL PATEL v. VADILAL                               835
             PURUSHOTTAMDAS PATEL (DIPAK MISRA. J.]

Revision Application No.173 of 2006. The same alone shall be dealt               A
with.
        17. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal relating to eviction is
allowed and the judgment of the High Court in that regard is set aside
and the matter is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration on merits.
There shall be no order as to costs. As we are remitting the matter, we           B
request the High Court to dispose of the civil revision application within
six months.


Nidhi Jain                                                Appeals disposed of.