The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the cause of action and the requirement to obtain leave under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. when filing a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.

1. This appeal arises out of the fair and decretal order dated 08.02.2010 in I.A.No.313 of 2009 in O.S.No.138 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Court, Cuddalore, whereby the trial court has allowed the application taken by the respondents herein for rejection of the plaint filed by the appellant. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial court.

2. Before going into the question, whether the order passed by the court below in rejecting the plaint is correct or not, it would be fit and proper to narrate the circumstances, which led the plaintiff to file the instant suit for specific performance, as follows:

(a) Defendants are the mother-in-law and son-in-law. The defendants have entered into an agreement of sale on 20.08.2007 with the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties, agreeing to sell the same for a sale consideration of Rs.12,500/- per cent and on the date of agreement, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.6 lakhs as advance and it was agreed that the balance amount has to be paid within a period of three months from the date of agreement of sale. The defendants have also handed over possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff to enable him to form a lay-out and other incidental works relating to lay-out. There was also a dispute between the defendants and one Govindaraj with regard to the suit properties and when the plaintiff came to know about the same, a panchayat was convened and in the panchayat, it was agreed that the defendants should refund the payment of Rs.4 lakhs to the plaintiff and consideration for the property to be increased by Rs.1,000/- per cent and the defendants should resolve the dispute between themselves and Govindaraj as early as possible. The terms were endorsed on 18.11.2007 in the agreement of sale itself; but on 18.02.2008, contrary to the terms of the agreement, the defendants attempted to plough the land. Hence, the plaintiff with great difficulty, prevented the attempt made by the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 2008 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Subsequently, the present suit in O.S.No.138 of 2008 has been filed for specific performance, based on the agreement of sale dated 20.08.2007, as against the defendants.

(b) In the suit filed in O.S.No.138 of 2008, the defendants filed an application in I.A.No.313 of 2009 contending that the relief now asked for is very much available at the time of earlier suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.82 of 2008. Hence, the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. as the plaintiff did not seek any leave of court in the earlier suit for filing a present suit.

(c) The said application was opposed by the plaintiff contending that the earlier suit was filed for bare injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties. The injunction application filed in the said suit was dismissed on the ground that the question could be decided at the time of trial. Though the cause of action in both the suits relates to the same document, the cause of actin for both the suits is different. The cause of action for the earlier suit in O.S.No.82 of 2008 is based on the attempt made by the defendants to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties; but the cause of action for the present suit is based on the denial of agreement of sale dated 20.08.2007 by the defendants. Therefore, the cause of action for both the suits is different and hence, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule II C.P.C. is not maintainable.

(d) After hearing both sides, the trial court allowed the application filed by the defendants. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that originally an agreement of sale was entered into