The court affirmed that distinct claims in separate suits do not bar subsequent litigation, emphasizing the necessity of evaluating each claim on its own merits, thereby upholding the trial court's discretion under Article 227.

ORDER :

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in IA.No.295 of 2022 in OS.No.4083 of 2021, dated 11.01.2023.

2. Petitioners are the defendant Nos.1 to 8. Respondent No.1 is the respondent No.1-plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.9 in IA No.295 of 2022 in OS.No.4083 of 2021.

3.1. Petitioner No.1 has sworn the affidavit in IA.No.295 of 2022 on her behalf and also on behalf of other petitioners-defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8.

3.2. It is stated in the affidavit that respondent No.1-plaintiff is her son, he filed the suit on behalf of her deceased husband- S.Bikshapathi Goud. Bikshapathi Goud has filed suit in OS No.50 of 2019 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge against petitioner No.1 for eviction admitting that she is the General Secretary and Correspondent of suit schedule school. When respondent No.1- plaintiff was never in possession of the property at any point of time, he cannot seek any relief. Plaint establishes that she is in actual possession of the suit schedule school and that respondent No.1-plaintiff has no title, right, interest and she has purchased the school in the year 1996, she is in exclusive possession of the same, one person should not be bothered twice for the same relief. But unfortunately, petitioner No.1-defendant No.3 has been vexed thrice. Respondent No.1-plaintiff and S.Bikshapathi have filed suit in OS No.661 of 2017 for perpetual injunction against petitioner No.1 before XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. In the said suit, petitioner No.1-defendant No.3 was shown as housewife and now in the present suit i.e., OS No.4083 of 2021 she is shown as a Teacher and the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and there is no cause of action to file the suit and the same is barred by law.

3.3. Petitioner No.1-defendant No.3 husband by name S.Bikshapathi died on 14.05.2021 leaving behind herself, two daughters by names S.Saujanya, S.Thejasvi and one son by name S.Sai Ramana (respondent No.1-plaintiff). Respondent No.1- plaintiff is showing the petitioner No.1-defendant No.3 on behalf of her deceased husband-S.Bikshapathi which is barred by law and he has no locus standi to file the suit and prayed to reject the plaint.

4. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed his counter and contended that the suit is filed seeking relief to declare him as absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule school as owner and possessor and the reliefs prayed in the suit with that of suit in OS.No.50 of 2019 and suit in OS No.661 of 2017 are quite different and it has no similarity, it is not hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record observed that “three suits are filed for different reliefs and under different cause of action, whether the doctrine of estoppel is applicable to the present suit can be adjudicated after full-fledged trial”, ultimately dismissed IA.No.295 of 2022.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the learned trial Court is perverse and has committed error in rejecting IA No.295 of 2022 and the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the contentions of the petitioners in proper prospective and passed an erroneous order and failed to note that the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and is barred by law. Counsel to substantiate her contention has relied on the decision