( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit filed for recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 and interest thereon on the foot of a mortgage. The defendants are the successors to late Sivakoti Laxmanrao and also Narayanrao and as such they are liable to pay the debt due under the mortgage executed by their predecessors. As the defendants failed to pay interest on the mortgage amount the plaintiff filed a suit O. S. 473/1970 on the file of District Munsif Court, Visakhapatnam, and a decree was passed for interest payable up to 23-9-1970. Subsequent to the decree also the defendants failed to pay interest and also the principal and therefore the suit is filed. The written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants stating that the plaintiff should be put to strict proof of passing the consideration and the mortgage does not bind the defendants. The plaintiff has to prove that the debt incurred is for the benefit of the joint family. Further, the present suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C. , in view of the filing of the suit O. S. 473/1970. The suit filed by the power of attorney also is questioned as illegal and void. On the above pleadings appropriate issues were framed. The Court below found that the suit mortgage bond is true, valid and binding on the defendants and the plaintiffs agent has power to sue on behalf of the plaintiff. It was held that the suit is barred under O. 2, R. 2, C. P. C. , as the cause of action is identical with that of O. S. 473/1970.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prior suit O. S. 473/1970 was confined to the recovery of interest and personal decree and the present suit for principal and accrued interest as against the mortgaged property is not barred under O. 2, R. 2, C. P. C. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the former suit O. S. 473/1970 even though filed after expiry of two years restricted the claim to the interest only though the cause of action arose for the recovery of principal also and as such the present suit does not lie.

( 3 ) ORDER 2, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. , are as follows:-"1. Every suit shall as far as practicable be framed so as to afford ground for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. 2. (2) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but the plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. (2) 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. "the width and stretch of the applicability of Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C. , is considered by the Privy Council in two decisions. In Muhammad Hafiz v. Mirza Muhammad Zakariya, AIR 1922 PC 23 the mortgage deed enabled the creditor to realise the interest alone or the principal inclusive of interest if the interest is not paid for six months and if the principal and interest is not paid after expiry of three years the mortgagee is entitled to realise the entire principal and outstanding interest. After expiry of three years the first suit was filed for recovery of interest alone and a year thereafter the suit was filed for recovery of the amount against the property. The Privy Council while holding that the second suit is barred observed that the creditor having exercised the option of suing for interest alone is precluded from filing the second suit. In Kishen Narain v. Pala Mal, AIR 1922 PC 412 the mortgage provided the payment of interest on the expiry of the first year and after there from the expiry of the first year and after there from the expiry of the first year and if the interest is not paid within three months it can be paid after six months (sic ). The mortgagors can redeem within two