S. Valliammai & Ors. v. S. Ramanathan & Anr.

5 S.C.R. 238 : 2026 INSC 372 S. Valliammai & Others v. S. Ramanathan & Another (Civil Appeal No. 3624 of 2024) 16 April 2026 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Correctness or otherwise of the impugned order granting rejection of the plaint. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 – Application of Or.II r.2 not a ground for rejection of plaint u/Or.VII r.11(d) – Original owner and his wife-appellant No.1 herein filed the first suit against defendant No.1-son, seeking inter alia permanent injunction – After the death of the original owner, Appellants herein (his wife and daughters) filed the second suit – Respondent-defendants filed application u/Or.VII r.11 in the second suit seeking rejection of the plaint contending that the said suit was barred u/Or.II r.2 – Application dismissed by trial court holding inter alia that the second suit was not barred on account of Or.II r.2 as the causes of action and properties involved in the two suits were distinct and separate – Order set aside by High Court by analysing the averments in the first suit in juxtaposition with the second suit and holding that the cause of action for both the suits was one and the same and the suit was barred u/Or.II r.2 – Revision petition filed by the defendants was allowed; plaint was rejected u/Or.VII r.11– Interference with: Held: Order of High Court set aside – Plea u/Or.II r.2 cannot be a basis or a ground for rejection of the plaint – In a case where Or.II r.2 applies, there is no legal bar to filing a suit but the reliefs sought for or the claims made therein cannot be granted if the conditions mentioned therein apply – For arriving at such a conclusion, there has to be evidence let in in order to determine whether the provision of Or.II r.2 would apply to the suit or not – On the other hand, in the * Author [2026] 5 S.C.R. 239 case of Or.VII r.11(d), if there is express or implied bar for filing of a suit under any law then on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it has to be rejected – The suit need not proceed to record evidence on merits but only to the extent where evidence is necessary to be recorded for the purpose of rejection of the plaint such as on the ground of the suit being bit by law of limitation or on the principle of res judicata – Thus, the bar created by any law to the filing of a suit is different from a plaintiff suing for certain claims or reliefs which he could not have claimed or sued having regard to Or.II r.2 – Therefore, the application of Or.II r.2 cannot be construed to be a ground for rejection of the plaint u/Or.VII r.11(d) – In the present case, the approach of the High Court in analysing the averments made in the second suit as if it is evidence, in juxtaposition with the averments made in the first suit was improper – Order of the trial court in the second suit restored along with the plaint. [Paras 5.9, 5.21, 8.1, 9] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 – Two suits, if distinct and separate – Distinctions to be analysed while analysing the plaints in the first/former suit and a subsequent suit: Held: On a conjoint reading of Or.II r.2 with Or.VII r.11(d), it emerges that the plea under Or.II r.2 cannot be a basis or a ground for rejection of the plaint – It is for the defendant to establish by way of evidence, the bar of the subsequent suit u Or.II r.2 filed by the very same plaintiff – In such an event, on a comparative analysis of the plaint filed in the first suit and the plaint filed in the second suit, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the second suit was filed on an identical cause of action which led to the filing of the first suit and there was an omission to make the claim or to reserve the reliefs to be claimed in the first suit in a subsequent suit, then the bar u/Or.II r.2 would apply to the subsequent suit or the second suit – Then the claims or reliefs not maintainable would be rejected as the plaintiff could not have sued for those reliefs by filing a second suit, although technically, the filing of such a suit was not barred by any law – On the other hand, if the cause of action for filing the second suit is totally distinct from the cause of action from filing the first suit and the reliefs claimed are distinct, subject-matter of the suits are different and if the parties to the suit are also different then in such a case, the plea u/Or.II r.2 would not arise at all. [Para 7] S. Valliammai & Others v.

S. Ramanathan & Another 240 [2026] 5 S.C.R. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11(d); Or.II r.2 – “barred by any law”; “statement in the plaint”– Whether the suit is barred by any law has to be determined from the statement in the plaint – Application of Or.II r.2 does not result in rejection of the plaint u/Or.VII r.11(d): Held: Or.VII r.11(d) deals with rejection of plaint and not the right to sue being barred – A rejection of a plaint is as per clauses (a) to (f) mentioned in Or.VII r.11 – Or.VII r.11(d) states that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law – Therefore, the crucial words are, the filing of the suit being barred by any law – The issue, whether the suit is barred by any law has to be determined from the statement in the plaint – The expression “statement in the plaint” would mean not only a meaningful reading of the averments in the plaint but also a meaningful reading of the documents appended to the plaint – Thus, it is on a meaningful reading of the plaint and the annexed documents, the suit should appear to be barred by any law – Hence, the written statement or any other document cannot be taken into consideration in order to ascertain whether the suit is barred by any law – When the expression “barred by any law” is read in juxtaposition with Or.II r.2, it is already noted that Or.II r.2 does not bar the filing of any suit but sub-rules (2) and (3) forbids the suing for certain claims which have been relinquished or certain reliefs which have been omitted to sue in the earlier suit in respect of which a plaintiff cannot sue for those claims or reliefs by filing a subsequent suit – On the other hand, the bar to filing of any suit in law u/ Or.VII r.11(d) is distinct – The law must bar the filing of a suit either by an express bar or by an implied bar – Under Or.II r.2, the right to sue is taken away in terms of sub-rules (2) and (3) thereof which means that the suit could not have been filed at all – On the other hand, u/Or.VII r.11 (d), there is “no bar to sue” but “the suit is barred by law from being filed” – There is a subtle but distinct difference between the two – If the conditions under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Or.II r.2 are satisfied in a case, it would be a case of there being a curtailment of the right to sue for the claims relinquished or omitted in the earlier suit – It is not a case where the plaint has to be rejected as it is barred by the provision of Or.II r.2 [sub-rules (2) and (3)] – The application of Or.II r.2 to a case can result in rejection of reliefs being granted to a plaintiff which may, in certain cases, also result in dismissal Supreme Court Reports [2026] 5 S.C.R. 241 of the suit itself – But it does not result in rejection of the plaint u/Or.VII r.11(d). [Paras 5.17-5.20] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.II r.2 – Bar to sue vis-à-vis suit being barred by law: Held: Bar to sue is distinct from a suit being barred by any law – In the former, a suit cannot be commenced at all and, therefore, would have to be dismissed on the application of Or.II r.2, while in the latter case, a suit can be commenced but is not entertainable owing to a bar in law – Under Or.II r.2, a suit can be dismissed after recording evidence depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and on the analysis of the cause of action in a former suit and a subsequent suit – In the case of rejection of a plaint, recording of evidence on the bar to file a suit may not be necessary in all circumstances – It all depends on the nature of the bar – Further, the right to sue is circumscribed by what is stated u/Or.II rr.1 and 2 – Or.II r.2(1) states that every suit shall include the whole of the claim 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 the court – With regard to relinquishment of part of the claim and omission to sue for one of several reliefs, the consequences are stated in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Or.II r.2 – Thus, under the said sub-rules the right to sue in respect of relinquishment of a claim or omitted reliefs in the absence of conditions occurring therein would not arise – Therefore, sub-rules (2) and (3) of Or.II r.2 deal with claims and reliefs. [Paras 5.13, 5.15] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.II r.2 – Application of – Test for. [Paras 5.8, 5.9] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.II r.1 and 2 – Object – Difference between Or.II r.1 and 2. [Paras 5.1-5.4] Words and Phrases – “same cause of action”; “sue”, discussed. [Paras 5.7, 5.14] Case Law Cited