SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Code of Civil Procedure

C.A. BALAKRISHNAN V. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADRAS, AIR 2003 MAD. 170 (A. KULASEKARAN, J.)

C.A. BALAKRISHNAN V. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADRAS, AIR 2003 MAD. 170 (A. KULASEKARAN, J.)

 

FACTS

  • Appellants (Lessee) ran a canteen and continued paying rent which was revised by Corporation Special Officer of the respondent and in between obtained necessary certificates from the District Revenue Officer & Labour Officer in order to obtain police license.
  • Junior engineer of the respondent without notice & warning sealed the canteen along with goods worth ₹ 26k.
  • In a suit for mandatory injunction & restoration of possession the Civil Court ordered delivery of movables but not restoration. The appellant in the High Court prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for restoring possession and exemplary costs & damages.

 

ISSUE

  • Whether Order II Rule 2 applies to the writ petition?

 

HELD

  • The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
  • The appellant’s original suit in the civil court was decreed ex-parte while allowing delivery of movables and dismissing mandatory injunction for restoration of possession. Seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of possession is also the subject matter in the writ.
  • 3 interlocutory applications were dismissed and none were appealed against.
  • Even after filing the writ, the appellant did not withdraw the suit which had been decreed ex-parte in favour of the appellant.
  • In Devi Lal Modi v Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam (AIR 1965 SC 1150) it was stated that public policy consideration & finality of judgment are important constituents of the rule of law. If constructive res judicata is not applied then the party can file as many writs as they wish at every point of time. This is opposed to public policy and causes harassment & hardship to the opponent.
  • In Madhadeva Sastry v Director, Post Graduate Centre, Anantapur ([AIR 1982 AP 176) it was observed that the person filing suit to seek certain relief in respect of a cause of action is precluded from instituting another suit for seeking other reliefs in respect of same cause of action and cannot be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction for obtaining the same relief.
  • Order II Rule 2 is based on public policy consideration. If a person intentionally relinquishes or omits a part of a claim arising out in respect of a cause of action then she is disentitled to file another suit for other reliefs in respect of same cause of action. If a second suit is barred then a writ petition is equally barred.
  • Hence, the writ petition was clearly hit by Order II Rule 2.