Maintainability of the subsequent suit filed for the balance amount.

ORDER :- These civil revision petitions have been preferred by the defendant in O. S. Nos. 2627 and 2626 of 1981 respectively, District Munsif's court, Vriddhachalam. Those suits were instituted by the respondent herein for the recovery of certain amounts from the petitioner on the basis of promissory notes dt.24-3-1971, 19-9-1974 and 24-11-1974. The promissory notes dated 24-3-1971 formed the subject matter of O. S.2627 of 1981 while O. S. 2626 of 1981 related to the other two promissory notes dt.,19-9-1974, and 24-11-1974. In so far as the

promissory note dt. 24-3-1971 is concerned, the respondent earlier filed O. S.1910 of 1978 for the recovery of one half of the principal amount as well as one half of the interest in accordance with the provisions of T.N. Act 40 of 1978. In the course of that suit, the respondent stated that as the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978 and also T.N. Act 17 of 1976 and there was a statutory discharge of and interdict against the recovery of anything more than one half of the principal and one half of the interest, the balance alone statutorily due was claimed. That claim was also further stated to be in time on account of the endorsement made on the promissory note on 21-8-1973 and 17-9-1974, and also on account of the bar against the institution of suits against agriculturists having been in force between 15-1-1975 and 15-7-1978 and the benefits of Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978 and T.N. Act 77 of 1976 being available to the petitioner. On 8-3-1979, the petitioner made an endorsement on the plaint in O. S. 1910 of 1978 submitting to a decree as prayed for, but praying for

six months' time to make the payment and accordingly, on the same day, a decree in favour of the respondent was granted in O. S. 1910 of 1978. Similarly, with reference to the promissory note dt. 19-9-1974, in O. S. 1909 of 1978, the respondent Maimed the recovery of one half of the principal and one half of the interest due thereunder in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978 and Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1976. In that suit also, the petitioner submitted to a decree and the respondent was given a decree as prayed for. These decrees so obtained by the respondent in O. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978 have not been satisfied or discharged. While the matters stood thus, the respondent instituted O. S. 2627 of 1981, District Munsifs Court, Vriddhachalam, against the petitioner for the recovery of further amounts under the promissory note, dt. 24-3-1971, stating that in the earlier suit in O. S. 1910 of 1978, on account of the operation of the provisions of T.N. Act 40 of 1978 (Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978 earlier), he was obliged to recover one half of the principal and one half of the interest and that as a result of the coming into force of T.N. Act 40 of 1979 that disability was removed, and, therefore, he was entitled to recover further amounts under the promissory note in accordance with the provisions of T.N. Acts 8 of 1973, 17 of 1976 and 40 of 1979 and that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the benefits of T.N. Act 13 of 1980. The cause of action for this suit was stated to have arisen on the dates when endorsement of payments were made, namely 21-8-1973, and 17-9-1974, and when the provisions of T.N. Act 40 of 1979 came into force removing the embargo upon the recovery of further amounts and the interest thereon. In his written statement, the petitioner contended that having regard to the institution of O. S. 1910 of 1978 earlier and the obtaining of a decree therein, the institution of another suit for the recovery of the balance would not lie, as that would amount to splitting up of a single debt into two claims resulting in the institution of two suits for the recovery of a single debt arising under the same cause of action and that was not permissible. The provisions of 0.2 R.2. C. P. C. were invoked by the petitioner in bar of the suit. A further