( 1 ). M/s Ashoka Builuers and Promoters and Another filed a suit for specific performance against M/s. Edward Keventer (Successors) P. Ltd and others. This suit relates to a part of the property being land situated at Block 48, Keventor Lane, Sardar Patel Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are entitled to aspecific performance of an understanding between thm and defendants No. I and 2 for carrying on the redevelopment of 25% of the said property in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22. 6. 1989. In this Suit defendants No. 2 and 3 filed two applications being I. A. No. 12771/92 and 12770/92 under Section 9, Order 2, Rule 2, and Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint as barred by law under Order 2, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code and defendant No. I took this plea in the written statement filed by it in para No. 4 of the preliminary objections.

( 2 ). The argument advanced by the learned counsel of these applicants/defendants is that on the same alleged facts and alleged cause of action the plaintiffs/respondents had filed Suit No. 594 of 1990 on 26. 2. 1990 for permanent and mandatory injunction relating to the same Memorandum of Understanding dated 22. 6. 1989 inrespect of the same property against defendants No. I and 2, who are the only necessary parties in the present suit and other defendants are not necessary parties and in fact ought to be deleted. The said suit was filed for and on behalf of and for the benefit of the plaintiff No. I. Along with the said Suit No. 594 of 1990 the plaintiff No. 2 filed LA. No. 1622 of 1990 under Older 2, Rule 2 CPC seeking permission to institute and file subsequently a suit for specific performance of the Contract/memorandum of Understanding dated 22. 6. 1989 and in the alternative to claim damages. That prayer, as sought for by the plaintiff, was not granted by Nayar,j and the application was disposed of vide Order dated 19. 10. 1992. According to the learned counsel , no fresh suit can be filed for any further reliefs in respect of the same cause of action if they had been omitted from the previous suit. The plaintiffs were obliged to claim all reliefs in the previous Suit No. 594 of 1990 and having failed to do so without the leave of the Court they are barred from filing a subsequent suit for obtaining another relief in view of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The Suit No. 594 of 1990 was based on the same Memorandum of Understanding dated 22. 6. 1989 and was filed against defendants No. I and 2, who are the only necessary parties in the present suit and other defendants are not necessary parties and in fact ought to be deleted. The said suit was filed for and on behalf of and for the benefit of the plaintiff No. 1.

( 3 ). My attention was drawn towards the contents of and the reliefs sought in the earlier Suit No. 594/90 and the present Suit No. 1744/92. According to the learned counsel all the reliefs which the plaintiffs claim in the present Suit were available to them at the time of filing of the earlier suit. Though the earlier suit has been termed as a suit for permanent injunction and manadatory injunction, but the relief claimed is on the basis of the same Memorandum of Understanding dated 22. 6. 1989 and that the relief claimed is the same i. e. directing defendants No. I and 2 to sign, execute or present such document or application which are necessary to fulfill the obligations cast on them under the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 22. 6. 1989. Infact the cause of action on the basis of which this Suit for specific performance has been filed was available to the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the earlier suit and they intentionally omitted the same and,therefore, this suit for specific performance ispatentlybarredundertheprovisionsoforder2,rule2cpc. My attention was also drawn to the fact that actually this Memorandum of Understanding dated 22. 6. 198