Dismissed¶¶29

Kiran Motiram Gaikwad v. M/S Bhumi Associates Thr. Its Proprietor Mr. Prakash Nanji Patel and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2025CRA/559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint — Order VII Rule 11 CPC — injunction simplicitor on purported verbal agreement for sale — reservation of right to sue for specific performance — Order II Rule 2 CPC bar on splitting claims/same cause of action — omission to claim relief not a ground to reject plaint — Order VII Rule 3 CPC description and map of suit property — civil revisional jurisdiction — jurisdictional error or material irregularity — Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand (1995) 6 SCC 733 relied on — Civil Judge Junior Division Bhiwandi — contentions kept open at trial.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Application was dismissed and all contentions of the Petitioner were kept open for consideration at the trial. ¶¶29

Kiran Motiram Gaikwad vs M/S Bhumi Associates Thr. Its Proprietor Mr. Prakash Nanji Patel and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Civil Revision Application was dismissed and all contentions of the Petitioner were kept open for consideration at the trial.

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit for injunction simplicitor, founded on a purported verbal agreement for sale and omitting the relief of specific performance, was maintainable or barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code. +2 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

Order II Rule 2 CPC embodies the principle that a plaintiff entitled to several reliefs on the same cause of action cannot split the claim; where the identity of causes of action is established, the bar precludes claiming in a subsequent suit a relief omitted in the earlier suit without leave of the Court.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

The omission to claim a relief (here, specific performance) in the first suit itself cannot be a ground to reject the plaint; on these facts Order II Rule 2 has no application, and its applicability could arise only if the plaintiff institutes a subsequent suit for specific performance.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

The learned Civil Judge correctly appraised the nature of the suit and the interdict contained under Order II Rule 2 of the Code.ratio¶¶21
The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.), by oral order dated 3 December 2025 in Civil Revision Application No. 559 of 2025, dismissed the revision challenging the order dated 18 September 2024 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwandi, by which an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was rejected. The suit below was for injunction simplicitor founded on a purported verbal Agreement for Sale, with the plaintiff reserving the right to sue for specific performance. The Court held, relying on Deva Ram and Anr. v. Ishwar Chand and Anr., (1995) 6 SCC 733, that while Order II Rule 2 CPC bars splitting of claims arising from the same cause of action, the mere omission to claim a relief in the first suit is not a ground to reject the plaint; on these facts Order II Rule 2 had no application, and its applicability could arise only if a subsequent suit for specific performance were instituted. The impugned order was found free of jurisdictional error or material irregularity; all contentions of the petitioner were kept open for trial.

¶1

Digitally signed by ARUN ARUN RAMCHANDRA RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL SANKPAL Date: 2025.12.06 19:35:43 +0530

¶2

3-CRA-559-2025.DOC

¶3

Arun Sankpal

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 559 OF 2025

¶6

Kiran Motiram Gaikwad ..Applicant Versus Bhumi Associates Through Its Proprietor Prakash …Respondents Nanji Patel & Ors

¶7

..Applicant

¶8

Mr. Sachin R Pawar, for the Applicant.

¶9

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 3^rd DECEMBER 2025

¶10

ORAL ORDER:

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant.

¶12

The challenge in this Application is to an order dated 18^th

¶13

September 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwandi, whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected an Application for rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”).

¶14

The Respondent No.1 has instituted a Suit for injunction on the strength of a purported verbal Agreement for Sale of the suit properties. The Respondent No.1 had made an assertion in the Plaint that the Respondent reserves the right to institute a Suit for specific performance of the contract, in the event the Defendants refused to perform the contract. It was asserted that the Defendants were seeking prospective

¶15

1/3

¶16

3-CRA-559-2025.DOC

¶17

buyers for the sale of their respective portions of the subject premises, and, therefore, suit for injunction simplicitor was filed to restrain the Defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property and from forcibly dispossessing the Defendants.

¶18

The Defendant No.3 had filed an Application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Suit for injunction simplicitor without seeking the relief of specific performance was not maintainable and it was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code. It was further contended that the Plaintiff had neither given the correct description of the suit property nor annexed the map as warranted under the provisions of Order VII Rule 3 of the Code.

¶19

The learned Civil Judge was not persuaded to accede to any of the aforesaid contentions.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Respondent No.1 has resorted to clever drafting to institute a Suit for specific performance on the basis of alleged verbal Agreement. It was urged that, in a situation of the present nature, the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code may be attracted.

¶21

The learned Civil Judge has correctly appraised the nature of the Suit and the interdict contained under Order II Rule 2 of the Code.

¶22

The provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code indicate that, if a plaintiff is entitled to several reliefs against the defendant in respect of

¶23

2/3

¶24

3-CRA-559-2025.DOC

¶25

the same cause of action, he cannot split up the claim so as to omit one part of the claim and sue for the other. If the cause of action is the same, the plaintiff has to place all his claims before the court in one suit as Order II Rule 2 is based on the cardinal principle that the defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause of action. If the identity of causes of action is established, the bar under Order II Rule 2 will come into play and it will preclude the plaintiff from claiming the relief in the subsequent suit, which was omitted to be claimed in the earlier suit, without the leave of the Court. (Deva Ram and Anr. V/s. Ishwar Chand and Anr.¹

¶26

However, the omission to claim a relief in the first suit itself, cannot be a ground to reject the plaint. In a situation of the present nature, Order II Rule 2 has no application at all. In the event, the plaintiff institutes a subsequent suit for specific performance of the contract, the aspect of applicability of Order II Rule 2 may arise.

¶27