O R D E R

Aggrieved by the 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 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 principle 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 sue 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 heard 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 sustainable, 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 Court, in one suit as Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is itself on the cardinal principle that the defendant should not be vexed twice in the same cause, one of objects, of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, is to avoid multiplicity of petitions.

6. As observed above, the petitioner while filing the suit has specifically averred in para-4 of the plaint that he had made request to the defendants to restrain them from illegal acts and designs, but his requests have fallen on deaf ears. It is also averred that the matter had been reported to the local police, but to no avail, as defendants were influential persons. His further allegations contained in Para-4 of the plaint, reads as under:

That it is apposite to mention here that the defendants are out and out trying to cause damage to the suit land/structures by carrying out the digging activities by engaging heavy machineries such as JCB etc., in the suit land which is very valuable piece of land and in case the defendants succeeds in their illegal designs they will cover up the most valuable portion of the land by damaging the existing damages and structures of the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff would be deprived from using and enjoying the same. The plaintiff made requests to the defendants to restrain them from their illegal acts and designs but the requests made by the plaintiff fell into deaf ears and as such the defendants in connivance with each other have damaged the Danga/retaining walls and portion of the structure pertaining to the suit