Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. At this stage, the respondent/plaintiff has filed Application Nos.607 and 617 of 2013 in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 respectively seeking amendment of the plaints in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance. The respondent/plaintiff has also filed application Nos. 608 and 618 of 2013 in the said suits to exclude the period during which O.S. No. 202 and 203 of 2007 were pending before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur from 29.05.2007 till 07.09.2012, the date on which the plaints were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for the purpose of filing the applications for amendment.

21. By quoting the above passage from the aforesaid two decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants/ defendants would contend that in the instant case, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the appellants/defendants to strike off the plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur on the reasoning that Order II Rule 2 of CPC can be made applicable only if the earlier suit is disposed of and thereafter a fresh suit is filed on the same cause of action. In the instant case, when the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, the earlier suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 were pending before this Court and hence the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC is not attracted. But in the appeal filed before the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6372 and 6373 of 2012, against the order passed in Civil Revision Petitions, it has been http://www.judis.nic.in Osa 24 of 2019 categorically held that that it is immaterial as to whether the first suit was either disposed of or pending, it will attract the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court struck off the plaints in the subsequent suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. While so, it is no longer open to the respondent/plaintiff to seek for amendment of the pleadings in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. However, the learned single Judge placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rathnavathi and another vs. Kavita Ganashamdas (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 223 has permitted amendment of the pleadings. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants, the ratio laid down in Rathnavathi case cannot be made applicable to the case on hand, inasmuch as the Honourable Supreme Court, in that case, held that the cause of action for the suits are different and consequently, the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC is not attracted. The learned Single Judge, without taking note of such observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rathnavathi's case, has permitted the respondent/plaintiff to carry out amendment in the suits to include the prayer for specific performance. The http://www.judis.nic.in Osa 24 of 2019 finding of the learned single Judge that since he is exercising equitable jurisdiction of the Court, it impelled him to conclude that the matter require further examination and that no harm would be caused to the defendants if they were directed to confront a full-fledged trial, cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge failed to consider the legal bar enunciated under Order II Rule 2 of CPC while allowing amendment to the suits in C.S. Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance of the agreements.

31. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff, Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure can be made applicable only if the earlier suit was disposed of and thereafter, a fresh suit is being filed with the same cause of action for fresh relief. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R.Vimalchand and others vs. Ramalingam and others reported in 2003 (1) Law Weekly 484, wherein it was held that when a suit has been filed during the pendency of an earlier suit, the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC is not attracted. However, by citing the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the appellants/defendants have filed Application Nos.222 and 242 to reject the plaint and those applications were dismissed on 08.02.2006. As against the order dated 08.02.2006, O.S.A. Nos.135 and 136 of 2006 were filed and they were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 30.03.2011 remitting the matter for a fresh consideration in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Thamiraparani case. During the pendency of the appeals, as the six months time for performance of the contract lapsed, the http://www.judis.nic.in Osa 24 of 2019 respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file the subsequent suits in O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 on 29.05.2007 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur, for specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005. Immediately, the appellants/defendants filed CRP Nos. 3758 and 3759 of 2007 before this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India for striking off the Plaints in O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 as being barred by the provisions contained under Order II Rule 2 (2) of CPC. This Court, by following the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand case, dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions on 06.09.2009. As against the same, Civil Appeal Nos. 6372 and 6373 of 2012 were filed and they were allowed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012 by holding that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand's case is bad in law and struck off the plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 from the file of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. Thereafter, the instant applications in Application Nos.607 and 617 of 2013 for amendment of the plaints to include the prayer for specific performance and Application Nos. 608 and 618 for excluding the period bona fide spent in filing the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed before this http://www.judis.nic.in Osa 24 of 2019 Court. The learned Single Judge had taken up all the applications including the application Nos.222 and 242 of 2006 filed by the appellant/defendant for rejecting the suits filed in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 and passed the order which are impugned in these appeals after hearing the submission of the counsel for both sides at length.

48. On notice in the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the appellant/defendant filed Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006 before this Court seeking to reject the plaints in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits as the lands, which are the subject matter of the suits, are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006 were dismissed by this Court on 08.02.2006. As against the order of dismissal dated 08.02.2006, O.S.A. Nos. 135 and 136 of 2006 were filed and they were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.03.2011 remitting http://www.judis.nic.in Osa 24 of 2019 the matter back to the learned single Judge with a direction to consider the applications afresh in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Thamiraparani case mentioned supra. Admittedly, during the pendency of the appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 135 and 136 of 2006, the respondent/plaintiff has filed two separate suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur for specific performance. On notice in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, the appellants/defendants filed C.R.P. No. 3758 and 3759 of 2007 before this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India on the ground that the subsequent suits filed in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 are barred under Order II Rule 2 (2) of CPC, since the plaintiff has not obtained any leave in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 before this Court to file the subsequent suits. The Civil Revision Petitions were opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by contending that the subsequent suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 are not barred, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand case mentioned supra holding that leave is required only if the earlier suit is disposed of and when the former suit is pending the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC is excluded. Accepting the same, this http://www.judis.nic.in Osa 24 of 2019 Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions on 06.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants filed Civil Appeal Nos.6372 and 6373 of 2012. By Judgment dated 07.09.2012, the Honourable Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeals by holding that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand case is bad and struck off the suits in O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff has filed Application Nos.607 and 617 of 2013 for amendment of the plaints to include the relief of specific performance in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 before this Court. Application Nos. 608 and 618 of 2013 were also filed to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 till they were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012. The learned Single Judge, in the common order dated 23.12.2016, which are impugned in these appeals, has held that when the Honourable Supreme Court had taken the view that the decision rendered in Vimalchand case is bad in law and struck off the plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, now the respondent/plaintiff cannot be found fault with for seeking amendment in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance. The learned Single Judge also found that even at the http://www.judis.nic.in Osa 24 of 2019 time of filing the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2015, the respondent/plaintiff, as an abundant caution, had taken out application Nos. 4259 and 4260 of 2005 to omit the relief of specific performance and damage with liberty to seek for such relief at a later point of time. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the time spent by the respondent/plaintiff in prosecuting the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 is bona-fide and excluded the period during which the suits in C.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were pending before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur and permitted amendments to be incorporated in the plaint in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005. With this factual background, it is necessary to decide as to whether amendments can be permitted to be carried out in the plaint in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance by excluding the period spent by the respondent/plaintiff in prosecuting the suit in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007. For deciding this question, it is necessary to refer Order II Rule 2 of CPC, which reads thus:-