SARABJIT SINGH Vs. RAMANDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order II Rule 2 CPC was not designed in 1908 for matrimonial matters stricto sensu as they were hardly in existence in litigation at the turn of the century among the Hindus. This salutary jurisprudential provision was incorporated in the Code to guard against the same parties litigating under the same title on the same cause of action, directly or substantially, piecemeal by calling upon them to claim all the available reliefs and cause/s of action in one proceeding to prevent multifarious and vexatious litigation on the principle that all available reliefs and prayers must be claimed in one action. Otherwise, it would lead to litigation never coming to an end multiplicity of suits. Therefore the bar was crated. Order II Rule 2 is meant for ordinary civil rights to property, private and public rights etcetera, and not to those rights which remain kinetic and ever changing such as in matrimonial disputes where a change of circumstance or a fact or subsequent event can change the entire aspect of the case. I would, therefore, not interfere with the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana on 16.07.2019 dismissing the petitioning defendant's application claiming bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC.

(2.) Looking to the facts, a few things may be said which are relevant for the purposes of determining this petition. The petitioner -Sarabjit Singh is the husband litigating against his wife - Baljit Kaur and his two minor daughters Ramandeep Kaur and Harashdeep Kaur. The subsequent suit has been filed by Baljit Kaur and two daughters against Sarabjit Singh claiming that the suit property by nature is ancestral and they had the right of inheritance, which dispute was subject matter of previous suits.

(3.) The first suit was filed by the wife and her two daughters for creation of charge on specific khasra numbers, which was allowed vide judgment and decree 02.07.2014 (Annex P-l). The second suit was again instituted by Baljit Kaur and her two daughters saying that the land sold by the petitioner in the name of his mother is fabricated and vitiated by fraud, which stands dismissed by judgment and decree dated 21.01.2016.