Supreme Court: Bar on Fresh Suit Does Not Apply to Different Causes of Action, Rules on Right to Redeem Mortgages

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that the bar on bringing a fresh suit under Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply when the subsequent suit involves a different cause of action. The judgment, delivered by Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, emphasized that the provision aims to curb the filing of multiple suits based on the same cause of action. The court underscored the importance of the term "same cause of action" and held that if the subsequent cause of action arises from entirely different facts, the bar under Order IX Rule 9 does not apply.

The court referred to the case of The Gaya Municipality v. Ram Prasad Bhatt and Anr. to explain the scope of Order IX Rule 9, stating, "If the two plaints are analyzed closely, it would appear that in the first suit, the cause of complaint was a threat by the defendant municipality to interfere with the alleged rights of the plaintiff... In the present suit, what is substantially alleged is that the plaintiff had a right to access to the house from all sides of the said plot..."

The court further clarified the concept of cause of action, stating, "A cause of action is a bundle of facts on the basis of which relief is claimed." It emphasized that cause of action should not be confused with defense or evidence but refers to the facts necessary to establish the plaintiff's right to succeed. The court also highlighted that the cause of action in a suit has no relation to the defense set up by the defendant or the relief sought by the plaintiff.

The judgment stressed the distinction between cause of action and remedy, stating that the former gives rise to the latter but they are separate and governed by different rules. In the context of the right to redeem a mortgage, the court held that the right cannot be extinguished unless specific requirements under the Transfer of Property Act are strictly complied with. Therefore, a second suit for redemption is not barred as long as the right of redemption is not extinguished or time-barred.

This ruling by the Supreme Court clarifies the application of Order IX Rule 9 and provides guidance on the interpretation of cause of action in subsequent suits. It ensures that parties can bring suits based on different causes of action without being barred by the previous dismissal for default, promoting fairness and access to justice.

Date of Decision: March 14, 2023

GANESH PRASAD   VS RAJESHWAR PRASAD & ORS.