CR-3653-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3653-2026 Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Monika @ Monica ...Peoner Versus Sheetal Dhir and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Meenu Salwan, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision peon has been filed by defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 15.12.2025 [Annexure P-5] passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby the applicaon moved by the peoner under Order II Rule 2 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit [CS- 3466-2022], has been disposed of with the observaon that the objecon raised therein would be considered a;er compleon of pleadings by framing an appropriate issue, as the same involves mixed quesons of law and fact. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent-plainff has instuted the suit alleging unauthorized withdrawal and misappropriaon of movable assets belonging to her deceased parents. The peoner-defendant No.1 filed an applicaon under Order II Rule 2 CPC contending that the plainff had earlier instuted two other suits concerning the estate of the deceased and that all the three suits arise out of the same cause of acon. According to the peoner, the plainff had deliberately split her claim into mulple suits without obtaining leave of the Court under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC and, therefore, the subsequent suit was liable to be dismissed. 3. The plainff opposed the applicaon by asserng that each suit YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.06 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3653-2026 [2] related to different movable assets, which came to her knowledge at different stages and, therefore, the causes of acon were disnct. 4. A;er hearing both sides, the learned trial Court held that the objecon under Order II Rule 2 CPC could not be conclusively determined at the threshold, as it required comparave examinaon of the pleadings in all the suits and adjudicaon on disputed facts. The Court accordingly directed that the objecon would be considered by framing an issue at the appropriate stage a;er compleon of pleadings. 5. Assailing the order, Learned counsel for the peoner contends that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit itself, as the pleadings unmistakably disclose that all the suits emanate from one and the same cause of acon and, therefore, the subsequent suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the peoner. 7. The scope of Order II Rule 2 CPC is well seBled. Before the bar contained therein can be aBracted, the defendant is required to establish that: (i) the earlier and the subsequent suits arise from the same cause of acon; (ii) the plainff was entled to claim the omiBed relief at the me of instuon of the earlier suit; and (iii) such relief was intenonally omiBed without obtaining leave of the Court. 8. These foundaonal requirements ordinarily involve comparison of pleadings in both suits and examinaon of the factual matrix giving rise to the respecve causes of acon. A plea under Order II Rule 2 CPC cannot succeed unless the defendant proves identy of the cause of YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.06 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3653-2026 [3] acon in both proceedings. The plea, therefore, is generally regarded as a mixed queson of law and fact. In Virgo Industries (Eng.) Pvt. Ltd. v. Venturetech Solu,ons Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 625, it has been held that applicability of Order II Rule 2 depends upon sasfacon of the essenal ingredients prescribed therein and the burden lies upon the defendant raising such plea. 9. More importantly, Order II Rule 2 CPC itself does not provide for rejecon or dismissal of the plaint at the threshold. Rejecon of a plaint can only be ordered under the conngencies enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Unless the plaint itself unmistakably discloses the statutory bar, the Court cannot undertake a detailed factual enquiry while deciding an applicaon at the inial stage. 10. The learned trial Court has rightly noced that the plainff has specifically pleaded that the subsequent suits were instuted a;er discovery of different movable assets allegedly concealed by defendant No.1 and that the causes of acon are disnct. On the contrary, the peoner asserts that the plainff had complete knowledge of all such assets even before instuon of the first suit. Whether the plainff indeed possessed such knowledge, whether the omiBed claims arose from the same cause of acon and whether there was intenonal spliHng of claims are all disputed quesons, which cannot be conclusively answered merely on the basis of rival asserons at the interlocutory stage. 11. The trial Court has merely deferred adjudicaon of the objecon by direcng that an appropriate issue be framed a;er compleon of pleadings. Such a course neither decides the rights of the pares nor causes any prejudice to the peoner. Rather, it preserves the peoner's right to establish the plea during trial on the basis of pleadings and YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.06 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3653-2026 [4] evidence. 12. This Court also finds that the impugned order is consistent with the view taken by this Court in Nisha Sharma v. Bimaljeet Kaur @ Jasvir Kaur, CR-5868-2024 (O&M), decided by this court on 08.04.2025, wherein it was observed that a plea under Order II Rule 2 CPC ordinarily requires framing of an issue and adjudicaon a;er evidence and that Order II Rule 2 does not independently contemplate rejecon of the plaint at the threshold. The learned trial Court has merely followed the aforesaid legal posion. 13. The supervisory jurisdicon of this Court under Arcle 227 of the Constuon is confined to correcng jurisdiconal errors, patent perversity or manifest failure of jusce. It is not intended to substute the High Court's view for a plausible view adopted by the subordinate Court. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdiconal infirmity nor reflects perversity warranng interference. 14. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision peon, the same is dismissed. 15. It is, however, clarified that the observaons made herein as well as in the impugned order are confined to the disposal of the applicaon under Order II Rule 2 CPC and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the controversy. The learned trial Court shall independently adjudicate the issue, if framed, on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and the applicable law. 06.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.06 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document