High Court of TripuraRSA/5/2010dismissed

Dwijulal Das v. Pulin Behari Nath

2015-03-20Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra9 pages

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA R.S.A.No.05of2010 ShriDwijulalaliasDwijalalDas,

Appellant -Versus- SriPulinBehariNath,

............Respondent BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA !

:"# # ! :"$ %&' # "()%# ' :20.03.2015 * + : YES NO √ JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) ( " #

, "$ %&' &' " ( )%

[2]

-.. $$ ' /

.0--1..2

-3 1..2 &' # *

&' / 10.41..2

311..5&' $ * *

[3] ' .1.61.-. ,

, , & 7 ,, 8 (i)WhethertheRespondentcouldbeallowed tofilesuitsaftersuitagainsttheAppellanton the same cause of action and if did so whetherisallthosesuitswouldnotbebarred under Order =2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code? (ii)WhethertheSuitforperpetualinjunction of the plaintiff (Respondent of the instant Appeal) is dismissed on contest on the ground that he was not in possession of the suitlandhadanyrighttofileafreshsuitfor recoveryofpossessionofthesuitlandandif he did so whether would it not attract the section11ofthecodeofcivilprocedure? [4]

' # , ' &'

' -24-&

-5-24-& , &' -6.0-241

' -249 &

06 -249 /

, &' / .4-1-229 '

& ' & ' ' ' &

311..5 ' , 8 (a) to declare the right, title, interest of plaintiffoverthesuitland. (b)forrecoveryofpossessionofthesuitland bywayofevictingthedefendantandhismen oragenttherefrom. (c)forcostofthesuit. (d)anyotherrelief/reliefsyourhonourdeem fitandpropertograntedtotheplaintiff. [5]

06 -249 & 7 ' &

06 -242

311..5

.1 -222 &'

.1-222

.1-222 & &' $ * *

&' / .2.91..3 8 Plaintiff of this suit prayed for a decree for directing to the Revenue Authority for mutation of the name of the plaintiff in the

suit Khatian by deleting the name of Late Birendra Kr. Nath who is the father of the Defendant from column No.13 of Khatian No.215. Exbt.1 is the Khatian No.215 and columnNo.13 relateswiththedescriptionas wellaspossessionindetailsinrespectofthe actual owner of the land. But in discussing and deciding to the Issue No.(iii) along with the Issue Nos. (i) and (ii) it is found that plaintiff acquired no right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possessionandassuchplaintiffofthissuitis notentitledtogetadecreeofmutationofhis nameintherecordofrights. [6]

.1-222 / &'

&' ' ( &' $ * *

' [7] (

&% ,& 7 , &'

$ 7 & ,

7 , & 7 , &' &

06 -249 &

06 -242 , & & 7 ,

& '

: ; 1 $$

' & 8 2.

.=(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claimwhichtheplaintiffisentitledtomake in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdictionofanyCourt. Where

a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (3) Apersonentitledtomorethanone reliefinrespectofthesamecauseofaction maysueforalloranyofsuchreliefs,butif he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Explanation: For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one causeofaction. #

& & % 7 & ' , -- $$ ,

' & <

& , -- $$ =

" !

[8]

, , &' , &

+ ' & & ,

: ; 1 $$> [9] " #

' & , ,

# & 7 ,: ; 1 $$ 7 & &' & 7 , [10] ! "$ %&'

& ' & , & 7 &' :

& 7 '&

&' : ; 1 $$&' --

$$ [11] , '

, ' & & 7 : ; 1 $$

&/ : ; 1 $$ , < ,

< State of Maharashtra and another vs. M/s. National Construction Company, Bombay and another (1996)1SCC735 8 17. In

!"# $$ %&,thisCourtheldthatwherethecause of action on the basis of which the previous suit was brought, does not form the foundationofthesubsequentsuit,andinthe earlier suit, the plaintiff could not have claimed the relief which he sought in the subsequent suit, the plaintiff's subsequent suitisnotbarredbyOrder2Rule2.Applying thisrulingtothefactsofthepresentcase,it is clear that, in the first suit, the appellants could only claim reliefs in respect of Rs. 14,12,836 which was the maximum amount stipulated in the performance guarantee. They could not have claimed reliefs of Rs. 1,13,27,298.16 which they did in the second suit on the basis of the contract relating to theworktobeperformedbythecontractor. # &'

16 , # 50 ) # ' &

, & , , , , &

&' / &

.1-222

& & ) #-2.4&',' ) # -253 @

, ' -1 ' , / < ,

, , & & ' &'

7 , & ' ( , & &

$ '

' '

, )$; JUDGE