Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

b. Any such other relief(s) and/or orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper under the circumstances of the present case, be also allowed to the plaintiff bank and against the defendant."

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that inasmuch in the suit CS(OS)2212/07 initially instituted before this Court before transfer of the same to the District Court on change of pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiff of the said suit having not prayed for the relief that could have been sought on the same cause of action in relation to declaration and specific performance of the Flat Buyers'Agreement, the institution of the subsequent suit now pending before the District Courts bearing CS No. 59737/16 in which the impugned order has been made, could not have been instituted. It has been submitted further on behalf of the petitioner that the said IA No.12856/07 which had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit no. CS(OS)2212/07 had been disposed of with observations to the effect:-

8. The prayers in the initial suit that had been filed by the plaintiff have been adverted to hereinabove. The subsequent suit CS(OS)1562/2009 which was instituted before this Court and now has been transferred to the District Court bearing CS No.59737/16 is a suit for specific performance, declaration and injunction and other consequential reliefs with the prayers therein to the effect:-

"PRAYER In view of the above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass:-

9. Apparently, as rightly observed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order, the causes of action in the two suits are different as observed vide para 20 of the said impugned order, which reads to the effect:-

"20. To dispose of this application, it is also necessary to appreciate what reliefs were sought in the first suit bearing no.57719/2016/2007. In this suit the plaintiff had sought the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant no.1 for restraining the defendant no.1, his family members, associates etc., not to encroach upon the suit property, not to obstruct and interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, it was also prayed that the defendants be restrained from obstructing, interfering egress and ingress of the members of the plaintiff in the suit property as well as not to deploy any security guard and CCTV in the suit property. These reliefs are clearly emanating from para-19, 24, 27, 30, 32 and 40. While on the other hand, the reliefs in the present suit relate to declaration and specific performance of the contract. It is also prayed in the present suit that the defendants be restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property. The basis of rights prayed in the present suit are completely different from the earlier suit. The causes of action related to both the cases are diametrically different. As discussed above, the different Courts have categorically upheld that whenever there are different causes of action, the plaintiff need to club them into one suit. He is at liberty either to file one suit with regard to different causes of action or to file separate suit in this regard. While in the earlier suit, the cause of action is arising out of the imminent danger to the plaintiff from being ousted from the suit property by the defendants, while in the present suit the cause of action relates to the contract itself. So the arguments that the plaintiff must have sought of specific performance and declaration in the earlier suit of permanent injunction is not tenable. Even if the plaintiff had filed one application bearing IA No.12856/2007 which was subsequently decided in his favour vide order dated 13.08.2014, the plaintiff cannot be denied benefit of statute. If the law permits the plaintiff either to file one composite suit for different causes of action or to file separate suits, his making earlier application does not nullify his present suit. Even if order dated 13.08.2014 was ambiguous and the present suit has been filed prior to making of the aforementioned application, the present suit cannot be dismissed merely on this ground. Even the order dated 13.08.2014 was given in favour of the plaintiff and the contentions of the Ld counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff concealed these facts before the Hon'ble Court is not sufficient to reject his present suit outrightly on this ground itself. Though, in case, the plaintiff concealed this fact, the defendant can seek other remedies."

13. The factum that the prayers made by the subsequent suit for specific performance, declaration and injunction and other consequential reliefs as prayed though CS (OS)1562/2009 now bearing CS No.59737/2016 did not include the said prayers in the suit bearing No. CS(OS)2212/2007, and the grant of the prayer vide order dated 31.08.2014 of this Court, qua the said application i.e. I.A. No.12856/2007 being subject to just exceptions, in the circumstances, can only thus be interpreted and read to the effect that it granted the prayer made by the plaintiff of the said suit to institute a subsequent suit in relation to the reliefs qua which the plaintiff has submitted that it had not relinquished or surrendered any right to seek declaration and further specific performance of the flat buyers' agreement as submitted vide paragraph 6 of the said IA.