Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Though various grounds have been urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant restricts submissions to only one point. Learned Counsel urges that the bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was squarely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and hence urges that in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the decision reported AIR 2008 SC 171 Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, the suit filed by the respondent ought to have been rejected as being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. The relevant facts on which the bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been predicated is that the respondent, who is the landlord, had filed a suit on 31.01.1996, seeking ejectment of the appellant from the tenanted premises stating that the lease having come to an end by efflux of time and even otherwise terminated by a notice, the landlord was entitled to recovery possession of the tenanted premises.

4. The second suit, being the suit in question, was filed by the landlord claiming damages for