The cause of action for claiming the relief is the same in both the suits, then the case is fully covered by the provisions of O. II, R.2(3) of the CPC.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated Aug. 12, 1981, whereby the two preliminary issues, arising in the suit for the recovery of Rs.16,74,596.98, out of which the present revision petition has arisen, have been decided against the defendant-petitioner.

2. M/s. Grindlays Bank Limited, the plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit on Sept. 25, 1978, on the allegations that defendant-respondent No.2 was a partnership firm while defendants-respondents Nos.1 and 3 were its partners and had been carrying on the business in their factory at Faridabad and that defendants Nos.1 and 3 were also the guarantors for the re-payment of the amount due to the plaintiff from defendant-respondents No.2. It was also alleged that the defendants had been taking loans from the plaintiff from time to time and, thus the total amount of Rs. 11,57,684.17 was due to the plaintiff from the defendants. It was also alleged that a sum of Rupees 5,16,912.82 was due to the plaintiff as interest and that the total amount due to it, thus, came to Rs. 16, 74,596.98. Since the petitioner created mortgage over his property by depositing the title deeds of his property with it, it was prayed that on that basis, a preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 16,74,596.98, be passed in its favour. It was also pleaded that a final mortgage decree for the sale of the mortgaged property be passed in the event of the defendants failing to satisfy the preliminary decree and that the sale proceeds thereof be paid to it towards the payment of the decretal amount. In the written statement filed on Nov. 29, 1978, it was inter alia pleaded that the suit was liable to be stayed as the matter in issue in the suit was also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, (suit No.107 of 1975), pending in the High Court at Delhi. It was further pleaded that in the previous suit, the plaintiff had originally prayed for the recovery of Rs. 11,57,684.17, on the basis of the pledge of goods by hypothecation, the pledge of the machinery and the alleged mortgage of the property in suit, but subsequently, the plaintiff gave up the relief for the sale of the mortgaged property in that suit and as such, the suit out of which this revision petition has arisen, was barred under O.2, R.2 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter called the Code). The other pleas taken in the written statement are not relevant at this stage. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following two preliminary issues :

1. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of O.2, R.2 of Civil P.C.?

2. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed for the reasons stated in paragraph No.1 of the written statement? The defendants placed on the file, the copies of the documents, Exhibits D.1 to D.4. No other evidence was led by either side. Under issue No.1, the learned trial Court held that the suit was not barred by the provisions of O. II, R.2 of the Code. The reason given for the same was that since the mortgaged property was situated in Faridabad, the subsequent suit, for the recovery of the amount, on the basis of the mortgage of the property, could only be filed at Faridabad and not at Delhi. Under Issue No.2, it was held that the subsequent suit was not liable to be stayed under the provisions of S.10 of the Code. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant-petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that both the preliminary issues, referred to above, have been wrongly decided by the trial Court. The subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff at Faridabad, was barred under O. II, R.2 of the Code and, in any case, it was liable to be stayed under S.10 of the Code. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel is that it was the same loan for which the previous suit had been filed in the Delhi High Court and for the recovery of which, the subsequent suit, has be