2.

Suit to include the whole claim. (1) 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 any Court.
(2) Relinquishment of part of claim. Where a plaintiff 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 cause of action may sue for all or any
of such relief; 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 so omitted.
Explanation. For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral
security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same
obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.
Illustration
A lets a house of B at yearly rent of Rs. 1,200. The rent for the whole of the
years 1905, 1906 and 1907 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 1908 only for the rent
due for 1906. A shall not afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1905.
Court Decisions
Latest Law Cases
Preliminary objection was raised--Second suit for declaration was liable to be
dismissed--Bar a second suit based on different and distinct cause of actions--Held:
It is an established principle of law that in order that a plea of bar u/Order 2 Rule 2,
CPC should succeed defendant who raised plea must make out that second suit
was same cause of action as that on which previous suit was based that cause of
action plaintiff was entitled to more that one relief without leave obtained from
Court omitted to sue for relief for which second suit had been filed--In order to
prove bar contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, pleadings in earlier suit should be
exhibited or marked by consent or at least admitted by both the parties, so as to
provide an opportunity to plaintiff to explain or demonstrate that second suit was
based on different cause of action. PLJ 2012 Lahore 652 = 2012 Law vision
326
Right to file a separate suit for possession--Law does not permit second suit if a
right to plaintiff is available at time of filing of the suit--A second suit in such like
situation is otherwise barred under Order 11, Rule 2 of CPC. PLJ 2012 SC 768 =
2012 Law vision 59
Object and purpose of both the suits was the same i.e. for execution of three
documents, therefore, alleged violatin or infringement of such understanding
constituted one and the same cause of action in respect of whole of the claim and
any portion of which could not be omitted but plaintiff in her earlier suit did not
mention anything about the portion of her claim relating to gift deed---While
omitted claim regarding gift, deed, plaintiff made claim in respect of
relinquishment deeds, therefore, portion of claim so omitted from earlier suit, could

not be claimed afterwards by way of second suit---Plaintiff did not claim that at the
time of filing her first / earlier suit she was not awere of her alleged right to the
portion of the claim so omitted by her---second/subsequent suit was rightly found
by single Judge of High Court to be hit by Order II, Rule, 2, C. P. C. and was barred
by limitation and accordingly plaint was rejected---Division Bench of High Court
declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge of High Court---Intra-court
appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. 2012 C L C 1028
Plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint to challenge sale in favour of
subsequent vendee for being illegal, without consideration and inoperative against
rights of plaintiff---Dismissal of such application b Trail Court---Validity---Subsequent
vendee had been made party in suit---Plantiff could not be granted relief of specific
of performance in suit without questioning genuineness of sale in favour of
subsequent vendee---proposed amendment sought against subsequent vendee
Proposed amendment sought against subsequent vendee would not change nature
and complexion of suit, rather same was essential for determining real controversy
between the parties---In case of refusing proposed amendment, plaintiff would be
debarred by virtue of O.II, R. 2, C. P. C. to question later on legality of sale in
favour of subsequent vendee---Delay itself would not be sufficient to decline
propose amendment---Trial court while passing order had failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it---High Court set aside impugned order and accepted such
application in circumstances. 2012 C L C 977
Petitioner in appeal omitted to sue respondent on the ground of his purported lack
of qualification/eligibility to promotion wherefore she was debarred from suing
respondent in the present appeal on the basis of the omitted claim under the
provisions of Order II Rule 2, CPC--Leave declined. PLJ 2011 SC 488 = 2011 Law
vision 570
Statement of Advocate regarding withdrawal of the claim in the suit--Validity--An
advocate had authority to make statement on behalf of his client, which was
binding upon the client unless there was any thing contrary in VakalatNama putting restriction on the authority of advocate to compromise or abandon
claim on behalf of the client--Advocate's power in the conduct of a suit allow him to
abandon the issue which, in his discretion, advisible in the general interest of the
client. PLJ 2011 SC 37 = 2011 Law vision 504
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Applicability
Bar of suit
Cause of action
Filing of second suit
Object
Relinquishment of claim in earlier suit
Scope
Second suit on same cause of action

9. Subsequent suit on different cause of action that had not accrued earlier.
10.
Principle of Res-judicata
11.
Multiplicity of suits
12.
Constructive resjudicata.
13.
Compromise out of court and withdrawal of suit
14.
Withdrawal of first suit
15.
Splitting up a cause of action
1. Applicability:- Civil Procedure Code 1908, having been excluded to proceedings
before Family Court, plea that present case was hit by O. II, R.2 of C.P.C. was not
sustainable Besides, on the facts and circumstances of present controversy,
principle incorporated in O.II, R.2 C.P.C. was not applicable at all, fresh cause of
action had accrued to petitioner as a result of fresh invasion made on her vested
rights had accrued. P L J 2004 Pesh. 14
2. Bar of suit:- Subsequent suit under O.II, R.2, C.P.C. would be barred only if in a
previous suit, a relief which was available in relation to cause of action stated in
said suit, but was not claimed. 2002 SCMR 300
3. Cause of action:- Cause of action' means every fact that will be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to support his right to judgmentCause of
action has nothing to do with the defence set up by the adversary more it should
be confined to nature and character of the relief sought. PLD 2002 Kar. 333
4. Filing of second suit:- Filing of a subsequent suit on the same cause of action
and for the same relief is barred under the provisions of O.II, R.2, C.P.C. 2002 MLD
507
5. Object:- Omission or failure to include any of the reliefs in the plaint operated as
relinquishment of that claimParty instituting the proceedings had to include all
reliefs flowing from main grievance, otherwise the omission was fatal, and as such,
it was essential for the plaintiff to assert all claimable reliefs concerning the
grievance of cause of actionAny such relief which flowed out of basic grievance if
not claimed or omitted, then such party stood precluded from agitating such reliefs
subsequentlyObject of provisions of 0.11, R.2, C.P.C. was to avoid splitting of
claim and restrict multiplicity of litigation in the matter. PLJ 2002 Lah.. 1581+P
L D 2001 S.C 325
6. Relinquishment of claim in earlier suit:- Earlier suit was withdrawn without
any permission to file the fresh one on the same cause of action as a result of

compromise effected between the parties out of CourtPlaintiff filed another suit
on the same cause of action and the same was decreed by the Trial Court but High
Court dismissed the samePlaintiff had agreed to compromise with the defendant
and had relinquished his other claim by filing statement for full and final
settlement of his claim and did not reserve the right to claim compensation for
filing the suit, as such his claim was not allowed by the High CourtValidity
Appeal of the defendant was accepted by the High Court with sound and cogent
reasons and there being no error or irregularity in the judgment same was not
open to exception, PLJ 2002 Lah.. 1581+P L D 2001 S.C 325
7. Scope:- Plaintiff filed suit for possession of property, which was resisted by
defendant on pleas of adverse possession, being barred by res judicata and O.II,
R.2, C.P.C.Defendant also claimed compensation for raising construction over the
property and making improvementsTrial Court decreed the suit, which was
upheld in appealPrevious suit was not filed on the basis of same cause of action,
which was dismissed for non-prosecutionAs to amount spent on construction and
improvements, except statement of defendant, no other evidence was led
Defendant could not prove plea of adverse possession as required under law
Findings of Courts below did not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or
non-reading of any material piece of evidence and as regard res judicata and
applicability of O.II, R.2, C.P.C. 2002 SCMR 300
8. Second suit on same cause of action:- From averments made by
plaintiff/appellant in relief clauses of plaints filed in two suits that according to
plaintiff's own case. there was only one cause of action. In both suits, he has
mentioned that cause of action arose when plaintiff was re-instated on his post
after previous litigation between parties. In both suits he has claimed
compensation for period of his leave and other compensatory benefits etc. S.C is of
the view that cause of action in both suits was same and plaintiff was not legally
competent to file two suits by splitting up his claim. Neither any reason has been
given for filing separate suits nor any permission was sought from District court in
which he had instituted suit in first instance. PLJ 1998 SC (AJK) 171.
9. Subsequent suit on different cause of action that had not accrued
earlier:- Provision of O.II, R. 2 is against splitting of claim which plaintiff was
entitled to make in respect of cause of action enjoining that whole of his claim in
respect of cause of action should be agitated at one time. Order U, R. 2, however,
would not insist on joinder of all causes of action available to plaintiff in one suit.
O.II, R. 2 of C.P-C. would not therefore, bar subsequent suit on different cause of
action or on cause of action that had not accrued earlier. One test for finding out

whether subsequent suit would be a bar because of earlier suit would be whether
claim in subsequent suit was in fact founded on cause of action distinct from that
which was foundation of earlier suit. Plaintiffs former suit which was for perpetual
injunction would not place penalty provisions enunciated by O.II, R. 2 CPC as hurdle
in the way of present suit. PLJ 1999 Lah.. 941 = PLD 1999 Lah. 340.
Contention that under Order II Rule 2, entire claim has to be included in plaint and
any relief available to plaintiff which had been given up by him in earlier suit,
cannot subsequently be claimed in a fresh suit. There is no cavil with proposition of
law but question is whether claim for relief sought in fresh suit was available to
respondent at time of previous suit. Cause of action in first suit accrued in 1989
when registered document was non-extant while cause of action in second suit
accrued to plaintiff when said documents were executed and registered
subsequently. It cannot be said that second suit was hit by provisions of Order II
Rule 2 of C.P.C. PLJ 1995 Kar. 323 = NLR 1995 CLJ 611= PLD 1995 Kar. 416.
10.
Principle of Res-judicata:- Party to suit could not sue for any portion of
claim which it had either omitted to sue or had relinquished in earlier suit. Such
party could not assert its right to sue for such claim at later stage and court would
not grant leave to bring fresh suit for such omitted or relinquished claim. Principle
of res-judicata being mandatory has to be applied against parties and each
agreement between parties could not operate against that principle. Where party
in previous suit had right and option to Lake any ground of attack in respect of any
issue framed against him and he did not exercise such option he would be
debarred to bring fresh claim through subsequent suit. All grounds of resistence
that are or were in knowledge of parties must be urged in defence as against claim
set up by other party. PLJ 1999 Pesh. 6 = 1999 MLD 2140.
11.
Multiplicity of suits:- Rationale behind Rule 2 (1) (2) (3) of Order 11 clearly
indicates that Legislature introduced provisions to control splitting up of claim and
to restrict multiplicity of suits. Petitioner had clearly omitted to sue for recovery of
compensation in earlier suit for specific performance. He could not sue for this
relief which he had omitted in earlier relief. Cause of action for both suits could be
joined in one suit and having omitted latter cause of action, bar of Order II rule 2
C.F.C- was fully attracted. PLJ 1996 SC 678= 1996 SCMR 1047.
12.
Constructive resjudicata:- Matter of inheritance from plaintiffs deceased
father was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit between the same
parties and decided. Plaintiff omitted devolution of property in respect of present
land in former suit and thus relinquished her share, therefore, in view of
explanation 4 of S. 11 and O.II. R. 2 CPC suit is neither competent nor can be

decided. Contention of. Principle of res judicata precludes piecemeal litigation and
hardship and inconvenience resulting from repeated litigation on the same cause
of action are checked. Bar contained in law for seeking remedy for any legal right
under O.II R. 2 and S. 11 CPC was for purpose of, peace and repose in enjoyment of
property by parties whose right in property have been once settled by courts of law
and no decree would be granted for disturbing the same. Cause of action in earlier
suit and in subsequent suit being in effect the same judgments and decrees of
courts below decreeing plaintiffs suit. were set aside and plaintiffs suit was
dismissed being hit by principle of res judicata.
PLJ 1996 Pesh. 320 =
1996MLD 1409. Suit for recovery of loan amount had been decreed and amount
of loan was recovered from defendant. Decree of Court having been executed and
total amount decreed having been recovered, there was no justification to allow
amendment of plaint in that suit and decree the amount over and above the
amount already decreed earlier. Provision of 0.11, R. 2 C.P.C. postulates that if any
portion of claim was either omitted or intentionally relinquished, then plaintiff
would not after wards, sue in respect of omitted portion or relinquished. Decree
passed subsequently by Court as a result of amendment of plaint after execution
and fulfillment of decree, being in excess of" jurisdiction and in sheer violation of
O.VI. R. 17 C.P.C. was tainted with illegality and the same was set aside in
circumstances. PLJ 2000 Pesh. 157 = PLD 2000 Pesh. 10. Cause of action in
suit previously filed by plaintiff before Civil Court being entirely different from one
upon which subsequent suit was based, said subsequent suit was not barred under
provisions of O 2 R. 2. C.P.C. or O.23, R. 1(3), C.P.C. PLJ 2000 Kar. 201 = PLD
2000 Kar. 58.
13.
Compromise out of court and withdrawal of suit:- Second suit for
recovery of compensation for blockade of money. Whether second suit was barred.
Failure or omission to include any of reliefs operates as relinquishment of such
claim. It is imperative for plaintiff to assert claimable reliefs concerning main
grievance or cause of action. Primary object of Order II Rule 2 is to avoid splitting
of claim and restrict multiplicity of litigation. Instant case relates to compensation
for blocking amount due to respondent from appellant and it could simultaneously
be claimed with principal amount. Order of withdrawal passed by trial court is
simple withdrawal without permission to file fresh suit. Since originally neither
compensation or interest was claimed nor it was claimed while making settlement,
therefore, subsequent suit for compensation regarding blockade of money or
interest, thereon, is patently ill-founded. PLJ 1995 Qta. 34 = 1995 CLC 88.
14.
Withdrawal of first suit:- Application U/0. II R- 2- Dismissal of. Revision
against. Earlier suit was brought when according to agreement, defendant had to

receive entire sale price and then to get sale deed registered, since, the defendant
had failed to do so, plaintiff filed a separate suit for specific performance of
contract and got his earlier suit dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, provisions of
law contained in 0.13 R. 2 not attracted, neither this law is bar to present suit.
Contentions of petitioner misconceived. Petition dismissed in limine. P.L.J.1999
Lah. 486 = 3998 CLC 1973 = NLR 1999 Civil 1.
15.
Splitting up a cause of action:- Filing of second suit on the same cause of
action against the same partiesPlaintiff on the same cause of action, during the
pendency of suit for declaration, filed another suit for perpetual injunction
Application of the defendant for rejection of the subsequent plaint was dismissed
by both the Courts below-Plaintiff could not file a suit on the same cause of action
while a previous suit on the same cause of action was pendingPlaintiff, in view of
the embargo placed by O.II, R.2, C.P.C., had to sue for all the available reliefs in one
suit and splitting up a cause of action was not permissibleBoth the Courts below
failed to appreciate the objection raised by the defendant in its correct legal
perspectiveOrders passed by both the Courts below were set aside and plaint in
the subsequent suit was rejected under O.7, R.II, C.P.C. 2002 MLD 507