Point of Law: A person who has filed suit seeking certain relief in respect of a cause of action is precluded from instituting another suit for seeking other reliefs in respect of same cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following reliefs:

“That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by directing the statutory authorities to take strict action and restrain the respondent No. 5 permanently from extracting the raw material and mineral against the terms and conditions of lease deed with regard to the joint property and the Annexure P­3 lease deed and P­4 i.e. permanent registration certificate of the respondent No. 5 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions, directing the concerned respondents to restrain and not to allow mining of sand within the joint land comprised in khata No. 39, khatauni No. 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, khasra No. 346,346/1,355,426,427, 342, 425 plots 7 land measuring 13­07­37 HM situated in Mohal Lodhwan Pratham, Sub­Tehsil Gangath, Distt. Kangra, H.P.

(c) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 & 4 to take coercive action with regard to illegal mining and stop the same with immediate effect, as the same is in violation of the policy and act itself.

2. The petitioner has not only approached the Civil Court, but has also obtained interim order of status quo in his favour, as would be evident from the order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, on 25.3.2022, which reads as under :

“Put up for filing of reply on 19.4.2022. Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua nature, construction and possession over the suit land and also qua illegal mining by engaging JCB machine.”

3. In these circumstances, there cannot be plurality of proceedings as no person can be vexed twice for the same cause of action.

4. It is more than settled that avoiding the multiplicity of legal proceedings should be the aim of all courts and, therefore, a litigant cannot be allowed to split up his claim and file writ petition in piecemeal fashion. If the litigant could have, but did not without any legal justification claim a relief, which was available to him at the time of filing earlier suit, the same claim cannot be allowed to be subsequently agitated by filing the instant writ petition.

5. In this context, it shall be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. D. Cawasji and Co., etc vs. State of Mysore and another, AIR 1975 SC 813 wherein it was held as under:

“[18] But, that however, is not the end of the matter. In the earlier writ petitions which culminated m the decision in (1968) 2 Mys LJ 78 : (AIR 1969 Mys 23) the appellants did pray for refund of the amounts paid by them under the Act and the High Court considered the prayer for refund in each of the writ petitions and allowed the prayer in some petitions and rejected it in the others on the ground of delay. The Court observed that those writ petitioners whose prayers had been rejected would be at liberty to institute suits or other proceedings. We are not sure that, in the 4 context, the High Court, meant by 'other proceedings', applications in the nature of proceedings under Article 226, when it is seen that the Court refused to entertain the relief for refund on the ground of delay in the proceedings under Article 226 and that in some cases the Court directed the parties to file representations before Government. Be that as it may, in the earlier writ petitions, the appellants did not pray for refund of the amounts paid by way of cess for the years 1951­52 to 1965­66 and they gave no reasons before the High Court in these writ petitions why they did not make the prayer for refund of the amounts paid during the years in question. Avoiding multiplicity of unnecessary legal proceedings should be an aim of all courts. Therefore, the appellants could not be allowed to split up their claim for refund and file writ petitions on this piecemeal fashion. If the appellants could have, but did not, without any legal justif