In Brief
Vurimi Pullarao sought specific performance of an agreement to sell after an earlier suit for injunction on the same agreement was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, because the plaintiff had omitted to claim specific performance in the earlier suit without court permission, despite being entitled to do so. Since both suits arose from the identical cause of action—the same agreement and transaction—the plaintiff could not split the claims. The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed refund of any deposit made to the defendant with interest.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.