The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the bar on subsequent suits based on distinct causes of action.

1. By this common judgment I shall dispose of these two appeals between the same parties. RFA 669/2003 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2003 whereby a decree for recovery of Rs.488664/- with cost and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum, was passed in favour of respondent and against the appellants whereas RFA 373/2004 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2001 whereby a decree under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.3,85,000/- with cost and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellants and Order dated 24.5.2002 whereby the application of the appellants under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 4 thereof was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals can be summarized as under:

The respondent/plaintiff who is the proprietor of the Design Build Consortium, entered into an agreement with the appellants/defendants for interior designing and decoration of their office premises at 29A, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi and Vashist House Basement, 7/3, Begumpur, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi. It was agreed between the parties that the respondent/plaintiff shall be paid a clear 10% over and above the cost of labour overheads and material supplied to the appellants from time to time. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that she executed the work to the satisfaction of the appellants and also handed over all the original bills of purchase, ledger of accounts and expenditure statements to them. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.567314/- however remained payable by the appellants to the respondent. A cheque dated 16th December, 1997 for Rs.2.5 lac was issued by the appellants to the respondent. When presented to the bank, the cheque was dishonoured for want of funds. The respondent thereupon filed two suits – one under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 3,85,000/- comprising Rs.2.5 lac as principal sum being the amount of the dishonoured cheque and Rs.1,35,000/- towards interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum. The balance principal sum of Rs.3,17,314/- along with interest on that amount at the rate of 18% per annum, making a total sum of Rs.4,88,664/-, was claimed in a separate suit No. 226/2000 filed under the normal procedure though on the same date on which the suit No. 225/2000 under Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure was filed.

3. In suit No. 225/2000 filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit summons were served upon the appellants on 25.02.2001. They did not put appearance within the prescribed period of 10 days and accordingly, a decree against them was passed on 15.3.2001. The application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (7) of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the appellants seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2001 on the ground that the file of the case was mixed up with the file of the other suit i.e. 226/2000 which was listed for hearing on 23.4.2001. It was also alleged in the application that the counsel for the appellants was under a mistaken belief that they had to first appear before the Court on 15.3.2001 and thereafter apply for leave to contest. The learned trial Judge noted that the appellants was not an uneducated person and negligence of the counsel was not a sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appearance. He accordingly dismissed the application.

4. In suit No. 226/2000, the appellants filed written statement contesting the suit. They took a preliminary objection that the plaintiff having filed a suit bearing No. 225/2000 under the Code of Civil Procedure, the second suit could not be decided independently in isolation of the first suit. On merits, it was alleged that the husband of the respondent Dr. Sujit Kumar who was a good friend of the appellant/defendant, Dr. D.K. Goel, had rep