SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

The two suits are almost identical save the identity of the defendants. The defendant in either case has applied for rejection of the plaint on the primary ground that the respective suit is barred by law. It is submitted on behalf of the two defendants that a judgment on the one matter would govern the other.

The documents referred to in this judgment are those found in CS No. 65 of 2009.

The plaintiff states that the defendant is entitled to duty credits calculated as a percentage of the FOB value of its exports of raw cotton. The plaintiff claims that the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to transfer the duty credit licences that it was to obtain in favour of the plaintiff at a price of 60 per cent of the value of the licences. Such agreement, according to the plaintiff, would be evident from the defendant’s letter of January 10, 2009 which was erroneously marked as January 10, 2008. The plaintiff says that by a government notification of February 17, 2009, exporters of cotton became entitled to VKUY duty credit scrips for exports made after April 1, 2008. The plaintiff has complained of the breach of the agreement evident fro