IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 12^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) NO.

153 OF 2021 Between:

RAGHUNANDAN BANSAL S/O LATE SHRI OM PRAKASH BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O OM SHEEL NIWAS DEONGHAT, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HP.

…PETITIONER (BY MR. PRATAP SINGH GOVERDHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. M/S G.R. INFRAPROJECTS LTD., HIRAN MAGRI, SECTOR-11, UDAIPUR-313002 (RAJASTHAN) INDIA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S G.R. INFRA PROJECTS LTD., HIRAN MAGRI, SECTOR-11, UDAIPUR-313002 (RAJASTHAN) INDIA

3. SHRI SUSHIL AHUJA DPM M/S G.R. INFRA PROJECTS LTD., VILLAGE DAMURI, SUBATHU ROAD, DHARAMPUR, SOLAN, HP

4. SHRI CHANDER PAL JUNIOR ENGINEER, M/S G.R. INFRA PROJECTS LTD., VILLAGE DAM URI, SUBATHU ROAD, DHARAMPUR SOLAN, H.P.

5. COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SOLAN, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.

6. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING OFFICE AT PIU-

SHIMLA,HOUSE NO. 1, RISHIKESH SADAN, SHANTI KUTIA CHAKKAR SHIMLA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HP 171005.

…RESPONDENTS (BY MR. KARAN SINGH KANWAR, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4.)

MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS & MR. VINOD THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS, FOR RESPONDENT No. 5.

MR. K.D. SHREEDHAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. SHREYA CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 6)

This petition coming on for admissions this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

Aggrieved by othe dismissal of the application, filed under Order 2 Rule 2 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC, the plaintiff/petitioner has filed the instant petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants with respect to the suit land measuring khata/khatauni No. 26 min/37, khasra No. 871/729/297 and khasra No. 824/729/297,kita 4, measuring H 1-13 bighas, situated in Mauza Anji, Tehsil and District Solan. It was averred that the respondents had already dug out a considerable portion of the suit land and he intended to assess the damage through an expert and prayed that leave may be granted to file a separate suit for damages on the same cause of action. Alongwith the suit, the petitioner filed a separate application, under Order 2 Rule 2 (3) CPC, with the same request to grant the permission to file separate suit for damages.

3. Thus the application came up before learned trial Judge on 30.6.

2021 and the same was rejected by according the following reasons:

“Perusal of bare provision regarding Order 2 Rule 2 shows that object of the legislature in enacting provision of Order 2 Rule 2 was to bring finality to the dispute and to prevent further litigation as far as practicable. Provisions in Order 2 Rule 2 (3) for grant of leave is thus an exception to the general pri nciple of law which is at the discretion of the Court, which has to be exercised with required caution and circumspection. The application has been filed on the date of filing of suit which means the applicant has intentionally omitted to suet for damages in the suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction with a reason that he intends to assess damages caused to the suit property through an expert. Moreover, by allowing the present application, it would rather lead to multiplicity of proceedings.”

4. I have Cheard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

5. To say the least, the order passed by learned trial Court is not at all sustaginable, as it is completely fails to take into consideration the very purpose and object of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC indicate that if the plaintiff is entitled to several relief(s) against the defendant, in support of same cause of action, he cannot split up the claim, so as to omit one part of the claim and sue the other. If the cause of action is same, the plaintiff has to place all his claims before the