Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs. 63,58,827/- alongwith future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till payment thereof.

2. It is not in dispute that before filing this suit, the plaintiff had already instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra, H.P.

3. This Court on 25.9.2014 framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.63,58,827/- alongwith interest @18% per annum against the defendant? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if so, its effect? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action to file and maintain the present suit, if so, its effect? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file and maintain the present suit on account of his act, deeds, conduct and acquiescence, if so, its effect? OPD

6. Relief.

4. Issue No.3 was treated as preliminary issue. The defendant on 4.12.2014 tendered documents Ex.D-1 to D-4 and closed her evidence and thereafter from one reason or the other, the plaintiff did not lead his evidence and it is eventually on 15.7.2016 that the statement of one witness was recorded and thereafter the plaintiff closed his evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully.

Issue No.3.

5. Before going into the factual aspects, it would be necessary to advert to the legal position.

6. In Gurubux Singh vs. Bhooralal, 1964 AIR (SC) 1810, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“6. In order that a plea of a bar under 0. 2. r. 2(3), Civil Procedure Code should succeed the defendant who raises the plea must make out (1) that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based, (2) that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief, (3) that being thus entitled to more than one relief the plaintiff, without leave obtained from the Court, omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. From this analysis it would be seen that the defendant would have to establish primarily and to start with, the precise cause of action upon which the previous suit was filed, for unless there is identity between the cause of action on which the earlier suit was filed and that on which the claim in the later suit is based there would be no scope for the application of the bar. No doubt, a relief which is sought in a plaint could ordinarily be traceable to a particular cause of action but this might, by no means, be the universal rule. As the plea is a technical bar it has to be established satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on basis of inferential reasoning. It is for this reason that we consider that a plea of a bar under 0. 2. r. 2, Civil Procedure Code can be established only if the defendant files in evidence the pleadings in the previous suit and thereby proves to the Court the identity of the cause of action in the two suits.”

7. In Sidramappa vs. Rajashetty and others 1970 AIR (SC), 1059, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“7. The High Court and the trial court proceeded on the erroneous basis that the former suit was a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the lands mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint. The requirement of Order 2, rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure is that every suit should include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in in respect of a cause of action. - 'Cause of action' means the 'cause of action for which the suit was brought'. It cannot be Said that the cause of action on which the present suit was brought is the same as that in the previous suit. Cause of action is a cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. If that cause, ,of action enables a person to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document