C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras

Blog Content

FACTS

The appellant, C.A. Balakrishnan, was running the "Udipi Canteen" within the Rippon Building complex as a lessee, continuing the business after his father. He was paying rent and had obtained necessary licenses/certificates to run the canteen. On May 25, 1995, a Junior Engineer of the respondent Corporation of Madras sealed the canteen without any prior notice or warning, along with goods worth over ₹26,000 inside.

HISTORY

1. Civil Suit Filed: The appellant first filed a Civil Suit (O.S. No. 3743 of 1995) before the City Civil Court seeking a mandatory injunction and restoration of possession.

2. Interlocutory Orders: The Civil Court, by an order dated July 10, 1995, ordered the delivery of movable properties but refused to order the restoration of possession. All interlocutory applications seeking possession were dismissed, and the appellant did not appeal against these orders.

3. Writ Petition Filed: Instead of appealing the interim/interlocutory orders, the appellant directly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for:

   • Restoration of possession of the premises.

   • Exemplary costs and damages.

4. Suit Decreed Ex-parte: Even while the writ petition was pending, the original Civil Suit was later decreed ex-parte in favor of the petitioner.

ISSUES

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable when the petitioner had already filed a Civil Suit seeking the same or similar reliefs on the same cause of action?

2. Whether the principles underlying Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are applicable to writ petitions?

JUDGEMENT

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was barred by the principles of procedure and public policy, specifically extending the bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC to writ jurisdiction.

Applicability of Order II Rule 2 to Writs

• Principle of Order II Rule 2: Order II Rule 2 CPC mandates that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. If a person omits or relinquishes a portion of the claim or relief, they shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

• Public Policy: The court emphasized that the object of Order II Rule 2 is based on public policy consideration to prevent the multiplicity of suits and to ensure that a person shall not be vexed twice for one and the same cause.

• Bar on Writ Petitions: The High Court held that a person who is precluded from instituting another suit for seeking other reliefs in respect of the same cause of action cannot be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for obtaining the same reliefs. If a second suit is barred, a writ petition is equally barred.

Constructive Res Judicata

The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Devi Lal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam.

• This principle holds that constructive res judicata applies to writ proceedings as well.

• The court noted that considerations of public policy and the finality of judgment are important constituents of the rule of law.

• Allowing multiple writ petitions on the same cause of action would be opposed to public policy and would cause harassment and hardship to the opponent.

The final decision was that the writ petition was clearly hit by the principles underlying Order II Rule 2 CPC and was therefore dismissed. The petitioner was directed to proceed with the decree already obtained in the Civil Suit.

This video, C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras (AIR 2003 Mad. 170) Explained!, provides an explanation of the case and its significance regarding the applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC to writ petitions.