1. Delay Condonation and Leave Granted

• The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and granted leave to appeal, enabling a detailed examination of the issues.

2. Genesis of the Case

• Originating from two suits in the trial court, the appeals pertain to disputes over property transactions, alleged breaches, and procedural bars under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

3. Initial Agreements and Subsequent Disputes

• Sale Agreement (2007): Respondent (M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited) entered into a sale agreement with Respondent 2 (Mrs. Senthamizh Selvi), paying the full amount and taking possession.
• Conflict: Revocation of Power of Attorney by Respondent 2 led to disputes over possession, prompting a suit (O.S. No. 28 of 2008) for injunction.
• Discovery: A subsequent sale deed in favor of the appellant (Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd.) led to a second suit (O.S. No. 122 of 2008) seeking specific performance and nullification of the sale deed.

4. Trial Court and High Court Rulings

• Trial Court: Dismissed the second suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC, stating that specific performance relief should have been sought in the first suit.
• High Court: Restored the second suit, holding that the causes of action in the two suits were distinct.

5. Appellant and Respondent Arguments

• Appellant: Asserted that the second suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, citing the deliberate omission of specific performance relief in the first suit.
• Respondent: Claimed the causes of action were distinct, with the second suit addressing contractual rights post-discovery of the subsequent sale deed.

Key Legal Issues

1. Whether the Second Suit Was Barred Under Order II Rule 2 CPC

• Primary Test: Whether the claims in both suits arose from the same cause of action and whether specific performance relief was deliberately omitted earlier.

2. Applicability of Order II Rule 2 When Reliefs Are Split Across Multiple Suits

• The Court emphasized analyzing the evidence and whether identical facts substantiated the reliefs in both suits.

Court's Observations and Analysis

1. Distinct Causes of Action

• The first suit sought possession protection, while the second aimed to enforce contractual rights based on a later-discovered transaction. These were deemed distinct causes of action.

2. Principles from Precedents

• The Court referred to Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian and Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal to establish the criteria for applying Order II Rule 2 CPC, including:
  • Same cause of action in both suits.
  • Evidence required to prove both claims.
  • Deliberate omission of relief in the first suit without leave.

3. Evidence and Burden of Proof

• The burden lies on the appellant to prove:
  • Identity of causes of action.
  • Intentional omission of relief.
  • No clear evidence established these conditions in the present case.

4. Substance Over Technicalities

• Emphasis on substantive justice over procedural rigidity, ensuring litigants are not unjustly deprived of their rights.

5. Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

• The trial court’s dismissal of the second suit lacked merit, as ambiguities in facts and mixed evidence require full adjudication.

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to restore the second suit.
• Directed adjudication of both suits on merits, ensuring fairness and resolution of disputes based on substantive justice principles.