C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner, Corpn. of Madras (AIR 2003 MAD 120)

Section O.2 Rule 2.

Facts

In the present case, the prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to restore the possession of the premises to the petitioner, a licensee. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has filed original suit for mandatory injunction of restoration of possession to him of the premises, which was dismissed and which is also the subject matter of the writ petition.

Issue

Whether O.2, R.2 applies to the writ petition or not?

Observation

The principle underlying O.2, R.2 being based upon public policy, a person who files a suit seeking 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 under O.2, R.2. The relinquishment of part of claim is not permissible and omission to sue for one of several reliefs is also prohibited. Likewise, the same person cannot be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court for obtaining the very same reliefs.

Decision

If second suit is barred, a writ petition would equally be barred, public policy underlying O.2, R.2 is attracted with equal vigor in this situation also.