The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for unity of all claims based on the same cause of action in one suit, as well as the prohibition against abusing the process of law by filing multiple suits on the same cause of action without obtaining liberty to file a fresh suit.

This is an application taken out by the first defendant in the suit C.S. No. 650 of 2012 praying for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Heard Ms. A. Sumathy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant / first defendant and Mr. Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff and perused the records.

3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for damages to the tune of Rs.26,88,468/-.

4. The applicant, claiming to be the owner of old Door No. 38, New No. 4 Gangaiamman Koil Street, Sridevi Kuppam, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 87, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with one Panchatcharam on 26.9.2007. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the builder has to raise construction as per the approved plan with regard to B, C and D portions and after completion of construction, the applicant was entitled to 60% and the builder was entitled to 40% of the constructed portion. It is stated that with regard to 'A' portion, the applicant had to pay Rs.800/- per sq.ft. for retaining the same. As the builder was not in possession of sufficient funds, he had not completed the construction in full and partially completed certain portions and sold two portions to one Sundaraman and Ramagopalan while selling one portion to the applicant. Inspite of selling a portion of the building also, the builder could not complete the construction. In the meanwhile, according to the applicant, she found out that the builder had sold an extent of 606 sq.ft. in excess of the agreed ratio thereby committing breach of trust and when she questioned the same, he had abruptly abandoned the work and issued a legal notice. Besides, he also filed a suit in O.S. No. 7483 of 2010 claiming a sum of Rs.14,35,681/-and the suit was dismissed on 30.9.2011 and on appeal by the said Panchatcharam before this Court in A.S. No. 175 of 2012, the same was partly allowed decreeing for a sum of Rs.2,69,452/-on 13.8.2013. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff herein claiming to be the purchaser of one of the flats from the builder Panchatcharam, filed O.S. No. 6 of 2010 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Poonamallee, for relief of permanent injunction against the applicant and her husband. It is further stated that the plaintiff herein is the son of the above said builder Panchatcharam. However, the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff on 23.02.2012. Once again, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 20 of 2012 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Poonamallee, for the relief of permanent injunction against the present applicant not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Even that suit was also withdrawn by the plaintiff as not pressed. The further case of the applicant is that in both the suits, the plaintiff, while withdrawing, has not taken the sanction of the Court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Therefore, the applicant has come up with the present application for rejection of the plaint as it is only an abuse of process of law.

5. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Application, has filed a counter affidavit contending that the cause of action in the suits O.S. No. 6 of 2010 and O.S. No. 20 of 2012 are different though the parties and the property are same. As the present suit C.S. No. 650 of 2012 is filed for recovery of money as damages, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff that the cause of action for the present suit is different and the suit is very well maintainable.

6. Now the issue in question is whether the plaint in C.S. No. 650 of 2012 has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant had contended that the present suit does not disclose a cause of action and hence, the plaint has to be rejected.

8. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the plaintiff claims to have purchased the property vide sale deed dated