On the same cause of action second suit has to be filed.

S. Jagadeesan, J.

1. Theappeals arise out of common order of the learned single Judge dated 10.1.2001 in Application Nos.855, 856, 4371 to 4373 and 4631 of 2000 inC.S.685 of 2000.

2. The appeals are taken up for final disposal jointly with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties. The appellant filed the said suit C.S.685 of 2000 seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) declaring that the resolution dated 27.6.2000 passed by the first defendant bank, holding that the non disclosure of interest by the plaintiff at the time when the proposals of the third defendant were discussed at the Board meeting of the first defendant Bank would be violation of the provisions in Section 299 of the Companies Act, causing automatic vacation of office of the Director of the first defendant Bank, as null and void and unenforceable, illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and violating of the principles of natural justice and equity, and (b) consequently for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant bank to restore the office of the Directors of the first defendant Bank to the plaintiff (c) declaring that the opinion dated 24.6.2000 and 27.6.2000 given by the second defendant to the plaintiff is malicious without any basis, arbitrary, made in violation of the principles of natural justice and equity and definitely. By way of permanent injunction restraining the first defendant Bank from interfering with functioning of the plaintiff as the Board of Director of the first defendant Bank, till the completion of his full term of office. (e) Directing the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.10,00,000 as a damage and compensation. (f) By directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit and (g) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

3. It is unnecessary to extract elaborately the pleadings of the parties, since the question involved for the decision of this court falls in a narrow compass. For the sake of convenience the parties are arrayed with their rank in the suit. The plaintiff was removed from the directorship of the first defendant bank by resolution dated 27.6.2000. The suit was laid for declaration that the said resolution is null and void and unenforceable and for consequential reliefs. Originally he filed a suit in O.S.224 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Tuticorin for a declaration that he is continuing as the Director of the defendant bank till the annual general meeting of the defendant bank. In the said suit he impleaded the bank alone as defendant, which is the first defendant in the present suit. The said suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action on the ground that the plaintiff wants to implead the Company Secretary as a party in order to bring out real facts happened in the Board meeting of the first defendant bank. Having withdrawn the said suit, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 31.8.2000 on the file of this court by impleading the defendants 2 to

4. However, the plaintiff did not implead the Company Secretary as stated in his affidavit filed to withdraw the suit before the Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin.

4. In the plaint filed in the present suit, paragraph 106 deals with the cause of action. In the said paragraph, it is stated that the cause of action arose at Madras, where the Solicitors Firm having their legal profession on the date on which they gave the opinion to the first defendant. Virtually the said paragraph deals with the opinion given by the second defendant, the Solicitor. In fact the suit was laid after obtaining the leave of the court in Application No.35 58 of 2000.

5. The second defendant herein filed Application Nos.4371 to 4373 of 2000 to strike out their name from the plaint; to strike out the pleadings which are unnecessary, scandalous, frivol