Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Arvinder Kaur Sethi – Appellant
Versus
Dilkhush Industrial Estate Welfare Association (Reg.) and Others – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous No. 376 of 2019, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 10077 of 2019
Decided On : 08-03-2019
CPC - Barred Suit - Order II Rule 2 - [CS (DJ) No. 59737/2016] - [Order II Rule 2 of the CPC] - The court discussed the application of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC and its implications on the institution of subsequent suits. It highlighted the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court in various cases, emphasizing the importance of analyzing the causes of action and the reliefs sought in different suits. The court concluded that the causes of action in the two suits were different, and the subsequent suit was not barred by law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Trial Court declining an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the subsequent suit was barred by law in terms of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the causes of action in the two suits were different, and the subsequent suit was not barred by law. It also observed that the question of limitation could not be determined without trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, the causes of action in the two suits, and the question of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of analyzing the causes of action and the reliefs sought in different suits to determine the applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. It held that the subsequent suit was not barred by law and that the question of limitation could not be determined without trial.
Final Decision: The court declined the petitioner's challenge, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Cav 220/2019
1. Learned counsel for the caveator is present and has been heard. The caveat thus, stands discharged.
CM (M) 376/2019
Vide the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 21.01.2019 of the learned Trial Court of the Court of the ADJ-02 (North) Rohini Courts in CS (DJ) No. 59737/2016, vide which an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed on behalf of the defendant no. 6 to the said suit arrayed as the petitioner to the present petition was declined. Through the submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 i.e. the caveator i.e. the plaintiff of the said suit, it is brought forth as also through the impugned order that the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner herein was to the effect that the said suit i.e. CS (DJ) No. 59737/2016 was barred by law in terms of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC in as much as by institution of a suit bearing number CS (DJ) No. 57719/2016 bearing original No. 2212/2007 that had been filed by the plaintiff thereof i.e. the respondent no. 1 to the present petition, was one for permanent injunction that had been filed with the prayer clauses to the effect:-
"PRAYER:
In view of the above, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-
(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the members of plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 1 thereby restraining the Defendant No. 1, her family members, associates, representatives, attorneys, agents, employees or anybody else acting through her and/or on her behalf from any manner whatsoever:
(1) not to encroach upon the "suit property" i.e. Industrial/Commercial Complex popularly known as "Dilkhush Industrial Estate" comprising of three built up blocks namely A, B & C, built on the lands, admeasuring 8 Bighas 12 Biswas i.e. 1.8 acres or 8712 Sq. yds. in the revenue estate Malikpur Chhawni bearing Khasra No. 387, 388 and 389 min. on G.T. Kamal Road, Industrial Area, Azad Purj Delhi, as shown in the red in the site plan attached.
(2) not to obstruct and interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the "suit property" by the members of the plaintiff, as shown red in site plan attached.
(3) not to obstruct and interfere in the egress and ingress of the members of the Plaintiff in/of the "suit property."
(4) not to give effect to her letters dated 11-8-2007, 11-9-2007 against the members of the plaintiff.
(5) not to deploy any of the security guards in the suit property.
(6) not to install CCTV on the "suit property."
(b) send the copy of the directions of this Hon'ble Court to the defendant No. 2 to preserve the "suit property" and ensure its compliance.
(c) costs of the suit may please be allowed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. l.
(d) pass such other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case there was an application annexed to the same i.e. IA No. 12856/07, an application under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC vide which the plaintiff of the said suit i.e. the respondent no. 1 herein had sought to the effect:-
"Prayer
Therefore, it is most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-
(a) Grant the leave & liberty to the plaintiff and/or its members to institute independent legal proceedings and/or to include the same in the present suit, against the alleged claims of the defendant no. 1, of having acquired ownership of the suit property including all other consequential reliefs, as well as specific performance by the defendants, jointly/severally of their all agreed terms and conditions of the purchase of each respective member of the respective portion of the suit property.
(b) Any such other reliefs and/or orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper under the circumstan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
