- Case number
- COMM) 38/2025
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- C. Hari Shankar
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Appeal allowed, the rejection of a second suit as barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure set aside, and the suit restored. Castrol had brought one suit for groundless threats under section 142 of the Trade Marks Act and section 60 of the Copyright Act, and a second against news outlets for disparagement arising from publicity given to a raid. The Division Bench held that a transaction is not a cause of action: one transaction may give rise to several, and Order II Rule 2 requires only that all reliefs on a common cause of action be claimed together. The two causes of action arose at different stages and called for different evidence. The Single Judge's view that the first plaint could instead have been amended also failed, because Order II Rule 3(1) permits different causes of action to be united only against the same defendants, and the media entities had nothing to do with the cause of action in the first suit. The Bench further held that where facts constituting essential elements of the second cause of action were unknown to the plaintiff when the first suit was filed, the second suit cannot be rejected merely because the earlier plaint could in theory have been amended.
Also listed as
- Castrol Limited v. Sanjay Sonavane & Ors., CM APPL. 80125/2025
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.