( 1 ) THE revision petition arises out of a Petition filed under Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C filed by the plaintiffs seeking to reserve thier right to file a separate suit against the defendants for recovery of the maktha due for the year 1980-81. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery ofmaktha for the years 1977-78, 78-79 and 79-80. But, the claim for the year 1980-81 is not included in the suit and filed an application to reserve their right to file a separate suit for the maktha due for the year 1980-81 and filed this application to save the bar under order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. This application is resisted by the defendants on the ground that this petition is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have chosen to file a suit for the arrears of rent for some years only and they cannot subsequently sue for the rents already, due by the time the suit is filed and this application for reserving the right to file a separate suit is not contemplated under Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. The Court below held that a subsequent suit for recovery of rent for the year 1980-81 forms part of the cause of action or the relief for the earlier years and as such Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. is a bar for filing a separate suit and in this view dismissed the application.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. specifically "provides for a reservation of the claim to a future date and therefore this application is maintainable. To appreciate this contention it is necessary to extract Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. which is as follows : order 2 Rule 2 : "suit to include the whole claim : (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action ; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to being the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court ; (2) Relinquishment of part of claim : where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally re- linquished, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished ; (3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs : a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs : but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for ail such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omittpd. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successsive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action". Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. provides that the entire claim should be compressed within the suit in respect of the same cause of action and in the event of any omission of the claim the plaintiff is precluded from agitating the said claim subsequently. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 2 provides that in a situation where the plaintiff is entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action and if he omits to initiate proceedings for any one of the reliefs he is precluded from pursuing the relief at a later stage except with the leave of the court. On the assumption that the cause of action is the same for all the years, the plaintiffs filed an application that in so far as the year 1980-81 is concerned, the relief may be deferred to a future date and this application is virtually for the purpose of saving the bar under Order 2 Rule 2. The permission to pursue the relief at a future date is contemplated under Order 2 Rule 2 (3) and with the leave of the Court the relief can be postponed. The scope of Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. is considered by a Division Bench of this court in P. Venkaiaratnammavs S. Sundara Ratnamma #1 wherein the Division bench held as follows: "order 2 Rule 1 and 2 C. P. C. are designated to arrest the proliferation of litigation. Rule 2 interdicts the filing of different suits in respect of multiple reliefs springing from