JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal which arises out of a suit which had been instituted by one Revanamma seeking for partition in respect of certain properties, which were left out in the suit which had been filed by her sister Shantabai for partition in O.S.No.71/2011. 2. The Trial Court took the view that the suit being one for partition, the defendants stood in the same position as plaintiffs and therefore, the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC stood attracted as they had not chosen to include the suit property and the earlier suit had already been decided and the appeal was also dismissed. It accordingly proceeded to reject the plaint filed by Revanamma. 3. Being aggrieved, Revanamma preferred an appeal. 4. The Appellate Court, on consideration of the matter also came to the conclusion that though Order II Rule 2 of CPC did not bar the filing of a fresh suit for partition on afresh demand for partition being turned down after the previous suit filed for partition had been dismissed for non inclusion of all the properties, the plaintiff had agitated her right in the previous suit and had not whispered a single word about the left out properties and the suit of the plaintiff was hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC and the rejection of the plaint was right. It accordingly dismissed the appeal. 5. As against this, the present second appeal has been preferred and the same has been admitted for considering the following substantial question of law: “Whether the rejection of the plaint by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court is justified on the proposition that the plaintiff could not have instituted a suit in respect of a property which had not included in the earlier suit for partition filed by her sister the defendant in O.S.No.71/2011, by reason of Order II Rule 2 of CPC?” 6. In a suit for partition, it is no doubt true that all the parties are considered as plaintiffs. However, this is because, in most cases, all the parties to the suit have an undisputed preexisting right in the suit properties and there is no dispute regarding title over the said properties and the suit would have been filed only to divide their preexisting rights in joint family properties by metes and bounds. However, this is because, in most cases, all the parties to the suit have an undisputed preexisting right in the suit properties and there is no dispute regarding title over the said properties and the suit would have been filed only to divide their preexisting rights in joint family properties by metes and bounds. However, that cannot lead to an inference that all the parties to a suit will have to be considered as plaintiffs for the purposes of Order II Rule 2 of CPC. 7. Order II Rule 2 of CPC[Suit to include the whole claim -1) every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action: but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. 2) Relinquishment of part of claim-where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. 3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs-A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.] has been enacted basically to ensure that that a plaintiff files a comprehensive suit and includes all the claims that he is entitled to make against the defendant at the time of filing of the suit. This also ensures that a plaintiff does not file repeated suits against the same defendant on the ground that he had omitted to make a claim when filing the first suit. In essence, the underlying objective under Rule 2 is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties. 8. As to whether this analogy can be applied to a defendant in the suit for partition would have to be examined. It is to be stated here that a defendant in a suit for partition is entitled to take up a plea in his defence that all the properties were not included and the suit would have to be dismissed. As to whether this analogy can be applied to a defendant in the suit for partition would have to be examined. It is to be stated here that a defendant in a suit for partition is entitled to take up a plea in his defence that all the properties were not included and the suit would have to be dismissed. Normally, when such a plea is taken, the plaintiff has the option to either include the omitted suit properties or run the risk of getting the suit dismissed on the ground that all the properties were not included, if the same is established by the defendant. Unless the Court deals with this particular contention that all the properties have not been included while determining the suit for partition, the mere defence raised by the defendant cannot create a bar to the defendant to file another suit for partition in respect of the properties which have been left out. 9. It is no doubt true, that a defendant can also make a counter claim against the plaintiff in the suit under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC[6A.Counter-claim by defendant-1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. 2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. 3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. 4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.]. 3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. 4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.]. However, it is to be noticed here that this Rule employs the word “may” thereby meaning that it is an option given to the defendant to make a counter claim in the very suit that has been filed against him without having to resort to the filing of another suit in respect of his claim. By the specific use of the word “may” the law makes it clear that it is not mandatory for the defendant to make a counter claim and thus if a defendant does not opt for filing a counter claim, that would not mean that he has lost the right to enforce his claim for ever. 10. It is to be kept in mind that when a suit is instituted by a plaintiff, the defendant is essentially defending a claim being made against him and in such a proceeding, there can be no compulsion on him to raise his counterclaim. The law merely gives him an option to take advantage of resolving his claim against the very same plaintiff by making a counter claim. This is essentially a tool of convenience for the defendant and the fact that this tool is not used by the defendant cannot lead to an inference that he has lost the right to make his claim. A procedural rule, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be used to defeat a substantive legal right of a party. 11. In my view, the principle embedded in Order II Rule 2 of CPC cannot be stretched to say that in a suit for partition if a defendant fails to make a counter claim, he loses the right to seek for a share in the properties of a joint family. If this argument is accepted, the valuable right that a defendant may possess over a joint family property would be deprived merely because he did not make a counter claim. 12. If this argument is accepted, the valuable right that a defendant may possess over a joint family property would be deprived merely because he did not make a counter claim. 12. Another factor to be borne in mind is that a claim for partition is a recurring cause of action and the said right can be claimed more than once and this cause of action is alive and can be enforced until the property is actually partitioned. In fact, this is also the view taken by the Apex Court in a recent case i.e., in the case of GANESH PRASAD Vs RAJESHWAR PRASAD AND OTHERS(Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (c) No.28377/2018 decided on 14.03.2023) which reads as follows: ““It follows, therefore, that if the right of redemption is not extinguished, the provision like Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC will not debar the mortgagor from filing a second suit because as in a partition suit, the cause of action in a redemption suit is a recurring one. This cause of action in each successive action, until the right of redemption is extinguished or a suit for redemption is time barred, is a different one.” 13. It is, therefore, clear that the right of the defendant to file a separate suit for partition in respect of a property not included in the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred merely because he has not chosen to make a counter claim in respect of the omitted property, though he had the option to do so. 14. In that view of the matter, the question of law framed is answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. As a result, the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court with a direction to it to consider the matter afresh on merits. The second appeal is accordingly allowed.