A subsequent suit is not barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code if the cause of action for the subsequent suit is distinct and separate from the cause of action for the first suit.

PRITAM SINGH PATTAR, J.

1. By this judgment the following two regular first appeals, which are directed against the judgment dated January 22, 1966, of Sub Judge Ist Class, Sonepat, will be decided:-

1. Haryana Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Rohtak V/s. Joint Hindu Family Firm (styled as Messrs Gupta Drum Supply Company.), R. F. A. No. 100/1966.

2. Joint Hindu Family styled as Messrs Gupta Drum Supply Company V/s. The Haryana Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Rohtak, R. F. A. No. 171 of 1966.

2. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff-respondent, the Joint Hindu Family styled as Messrs Gupta Drum Supply Company carries on business in New Mandi, Rohtak. The defendant-appellant, The Haryana Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Rohtak, is a limited Co-operative Society carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar and molasses at Rohtak. The defendant invited tenders for the purchase of molasses to be produced by it during the crushing season 1962-63 in its Mills, by means of advertisements in several newspapers and one such advertisement was published in the Daily Tribune dated November 2, 1962. The last date fixed for the receipt of such tenders was November 10, 1962, The plaintiff-firm submitted its tender to purchase the whole quantity of molasses prepared by the defendant during the aforesaid season at the rate of 65 N. P. per maund. The defendant accepted this offer on November 10, 1962 and informed the plaintiff of the said acceptance vide their letter dated November 12, 1962. The plaintiff was also required to deposit Rs. 15,000/- with the defendant as security for due performance of the said contract. The molasses were to be delivered to the plaintiff as and when they were ready and were to be finally cleared by the plaintiff by October 15, 1963. In accordance with this letter of acceptance, the plaintiff deposited Rs. 15,000/- on November 12, 1962, as security. The defendant-mill started working on or about November 30, 1962, and by December 17, 1962, it produced 3966 quintals of molasses. The plaintiff demanded delivery of this quantity of molasses, but the defendant delayed and neglected to deliver the same. The plaintiff brought suit for a decree on December 18, 1962, for the delivery of 10,000 maunds of molasses or any other quantity shown by the defendant to have been produced upto that date on payment of 65 N. P. Per maund and in the alternative a decree for Rs. 8,000/- as damages was claimed against the defendant for non-delivery of the molasses. The relief for specific performance was declined and decree for recovery of Rs. 8,000/- as damages was passed in favour at the plaintiff-Joint Hindu Family Firm against the defendant-mill, vide Exhibit P. 9, which is a copy of the judgment dated August 13, 1963. It appears that the market price of the molasses rose and the defendant-mill during the pendency of the above-mentioned civil suit repudiated the contract by its letter dated December 20, 1962, alleging that the acceptance was not legal and was not binding on it. It is alleged that the defendant-mill entered into a contract with Messrs Haryana Shira Supply Company, Rohtak, and sold all the molasses at the rate of Rs. 2.55 per maund to that company. The total quantity of molasses prepared by the defendant from December 19, 1962, till October 15, 1963, was estimated to 70,000 maunds. The plaintiff has assessed the damages caused to it amounting to Rs. 1,33,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1.90 per maund for the non-delivery of 70,000 maunds of molasses. The plaintiff also claimed refund of the security of Rupees 15,000/-. Claim was also made for the recovery of Rs. 7,000/- as interest at the rate of 9 per cent on the deposit amount of Rupees 15,000/- as also on the amount of damages from October 15, 1963, till the date of the suit. It was prayed that a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,55,000/- be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds. It