A suit is not barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code if the cause of action for the suit and the cause of action for the earlier suit are different and the relief claimed in the suit could not have been given in the earlier suit on the basis of the pleading made in the plaint.

1. The Appellants in the O.S.A. are defendants 1, 3, 5, 6 to 13 and the legal representatives of the 4th defendant in C.S. No. 126 of 1969. The suit C.S. No. 126 of 1969 is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,28,299-42 together with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 91,393-55 from the date of plaint till the date of decree at 12% per annum and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of payment.

2. The case of the plaintiff in C.S. No. 126 of 1969 is as follows: The first defendant firm started production of a Motion Picture in Telugu titled as Srikakula Andhra Maha Vishnu in the beginning of the year 1965. Defendants 2 to 5 are the partners of the first defendant firm. By distribution agreement dated 16.6.1965 marked as ExP.1 in the case between the plaintiff on the one hand and the first defendant firm represented by the 2nd respondent as its Managing Partner on the other hand, the plaintiff was granted the sole and exclusive rights of distribution over the said Telugu motion Picture Srikakula Andhra Maha Vishnu for the areas comprising Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, East Godavary, West Godavary, Krishna, Guntur, Nellore, Chittoor, Anantapur, Cuddappah, Kurnool of Andhra Pradesh and Bellary District of Mysore State, Ganjam and Korapet Districts of Orissa State and Bengal Circuit including Madhya Pradesh. The distribution Agreement Provided that (a) that the plaintiff should pay the defendants as distribution advance a sum of Rs. 3,00,000, (b) that the plaintiff should in addition to the said sum of Rs. 3,00,000 advance a further sum equivalent to the cost of release prints against the delivery of the raw film and also the cost of publicities such as newspaper publicities, banners, cut outs, etc., (c) that the defendants should deliver the release prints to the plaintiff on or before 31-3-1966, (d) the distribution period is for five years from the date of the first release of the picture; (e) that the plaintiff should reimburse itself all the amounts advanced to the defendants or spent on behalf of the defendants from the net distributor's share of the collections of the picture after deducting their distribution commission; (f) that if the plaintiff was unable to realise all the amounts advanced, amounts spent and expenses incurred by it on. behalf of the defendants on account of the picture together with the distribution commission within one year from the date of the first release of the picture in the areas reserved to it, the plaintiff is entitled to claim such unrealized amount remaining due to it under the distribution agreement, with interest, without prejudice to the plaintiff's right of distribution of the picture for the unexpired period covered by the distribution agreement. Pursuant to this distribution agreement dated 16.6.1965 the plaintiff advanced the defendants the entire amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and also advanced the amount of release prints, publicities etc. which came to Rs. 5,07,025-49 ps. The picture was released on 6-5-1966. Although more than three years and five months have elapsed from the date of release of the picture, the plaintiff was able to realise only Rs. 4,09,337-21 ps. and there is still a balance of Rs. 91,393-55 ps. being the unrealised amount and Rs. 36,903-87 ps. towards interest at 12% on the unrealised amount from the date of expiry of one year, i.e. 6.5.1966 from the date of the first release of the picture, both the amounts aggregating to Rs. 1,28,299-42 ps. and the defendants are liable to pay the said sum to the plaintiff.

3. The third defendant, one of the partners of the first defendant firm filed the written statement which was adopted by the other defendants. In the written statement, the defendants contended that the plaintiff had not given the proper statement of account and that the plaintiff had not exploited the picture in the Bengal Circuit which was also part of the area distribution given to the plaintiff and that, in any event, the plaintiff is not entitled to clai