O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in I.A.No.24 of 2015 in O.S.No.85 of 2014, thereby dismissing the petition for rejection of plaint.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.85 of 2014, for recovery of money based on the construction contract dated 14.09.2009. The respondent already filed suit in O.S.No.229 of 2011 for injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering his legal right to retain possession of suit schedule property and also sought for permanent injunction from evicting the respondent from the suit schedule property. Pending the suit, the respondent filed another suit for recovery of money on the very same contract. Therefore, the petitioner filed petition in I.A.No.24 of 2015 for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit itself directly hit by Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. The trial Court dismissed the said petition and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the suit is barred as repetition of the earlier suit, illegally inviting the Court to evaluate the facts for the second time, while the earlier suit in O.S.No.299 of 2011 between the very same parties with the same allegations. The earlier suit filed by the respondent based on the very same contract of work viz., construction of marriage hall dated 14.09.2009. The earlier suit filed with the cause of action that on the strength of the contract dated 14.09.2009, the construction came into existence and by letter dated 20.09.2009, the petitioner requested the respondent to extend the construction area in 8305.31 sq.ft., instead of 5227 sq.ft., when the respondent completed 80% of the building in the ground floor and 60% of work in the first floor on 15.03.2011, the respondent sent letter to settle the amount due. On 21.03.2011 the respondent issued legal notice followed by the rejoinder dated 20.06.2011 and filed suit in O.S.No.229 of 2011. Whereas the second suit also filed for very same cause of action for recovery of money. It is clearly barred under Order II Rule 21 of CPC. 3.1. He further submitted that when the respondent made very same allegations, no one prevent him to seek the prayer of recovery of money in the very same suit for injunction. Even when the first suit was pending, the present suit has been filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money. In fact after filing of the present suit, the earlier suit dismissed by the judgment dated 17.07.2014. Whereas, the respondent filed suit for the very same cause of action and it cannot give further decision based on the earlier final decision, upon the same dispute and it cannot be continued for subsequent litigation. Therefore, when the respondent had intentionally relinquished and omitted the relief of recovery of money, he shall not file second suit based on such omitted relief under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. In fact, the respondent was not entitled to make such claim for the same cause of action including the recovery of money. In the earlier suit, he failed to get the leave of the Court as such, he shall not file the present suit under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. In support of his contention he relied upon the following reported judgments :-

i) (2014) 2 LW 455 - R. Riyaz Ahmed & others vs J.G. Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, ii) (2014) 3 LW 898 - S.Thirugnanasambandam vs. P.

Kaliyaperumal and Ors., iii)(2013) 1 LW 31 - Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited Vs.

Venturetech Solutions Private Limited

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent initially filed suit for injunction as against the petitioner herein restraining him from interfering with the respondent's right to possess the suit schedule property to proceed with the construction and also permanent injunction from evicting him