JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:--Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the question which falls for determination in these appeals is identical. The question which requires determination is at what point of time leave of the Court to sue for relief which was omitted to be sought earlier is required to be obtained under sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order II of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. To appreciate the question which arises, only few facts are required to be stated.

2. In Appeal No. 509 of 1992, appellant instituted Suit No. 1334 of 1990 on the Original Side of this Court on April 21, 1990 for a declaration that the Bank guarantee dated January 27, 1989 in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs furnished in favour of respondent No. 1 is null and void and of no legal effect. The appellant sought injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from invoking or recovering money under the Bank guarantee. The respondent No. 1 had submitted tender for grant of contract floated by Director General of Naval Project for setting up of workshop building for electroplating and battery repair facility at Naval Dockayard, Bombay. On August 3, 1988, the appellant and respondent No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document