RSA-1667-1996 IN THE HIGH 203 Rahmuddin (sinc Subhan Khan (sin CORAM : HON Present: Mr. for t Mr. Mr. Moh Mr. for

*** AMARINDER S 1. The against the judg Appellate Court decree dated 25 respondents-plain of the learned tria 2. For manner in which 3. In b specific perform whereby the defe 1996 (O&M) -1- IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H RSA No. Date of De n (since deceased) through LRs Versus (since deceased) through LRs and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Aditya Vermani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mohammad Sabir, Advocate Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate Mohd. Parvej, Advocate and Mr. Injamam-ul-Haque, Advocate for the respondents. ***** DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been pref e judgment and decree dated 17.05 Court whereby the appeal preferred 25.10.1994 passed by the learn plaintiffs, has been dismissed while ed trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the p which they were before the learned Tr In brief, the facts are that the pla erformance on the basis of an agre e defendant agreed to sell the suit pro ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR No.1667-1996 (O&M) e of Decision:14.01.2026 ... Appellant and others ...Respondents MARINDER SINGH GREWAL RAL) n preferred by the appellant-defenda 17.05.1996 passed by the learned erred by him against the judgment a learned trial Court, decreeing of t while upholding the aforesaid judgme , the parties are being described in t ned Trial Court. the plaintiffs instituted a civil suit f agreement to sell dated 26.08.19 uit property for a total sale considerati GARH s efendant arned 1st ent and g of the udgment d in the suit for .08.1988, ideration PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 of ₹75,000/-. At ₹51,000/- as earn agreed to be paid 31.05.1990. The the contract and On 31.05.1990, t with the balance execution of the instituted a suit property, wherei seeking amendm was withdrawn o to be instituted. 4. Upo written statement and the receipt o asserted that the ₹24,000/- and d whereas the defe Registrar on the and willing to pe the balance co maintainability, insufficiency of c 1996 (O&M) -2- At the time of execution of the a as earnest money, while the balance sa be paid at the time of execution and r he plaintiffs were always ready an t and had repeatedly requested the de , they appeared before the office lance sale consideration and stamp ex of the sale deed. It was further plea suit for permanent injunction on 2 wherein an application under Order endment of the plaint. However, the rawn on 31.10.1991 and the present s uted. Upon notice, the suit was contest tement, wherein the execution of the a eipt of ₹51,000/- as earnest money at the plaintiffs failed to arrange t and did not appear before the Sub e defendant claimed to have remained n the said date. It was further pleaded to perform their part of the contract ce consideration. The defendant a ility, locus standi, limitation, est cy of court-fee, and specifically plead f the agreement, the defendant receiv ance sale consideration of ₹24,000/- and registration of the sale deed i.e. ady and willing to perform their part the defendant to execute the sale dee office of the Sub-Registrar, Nuh, alo mp expenses, but the defendant avoid r pleaded that the plaintiffs had earl on 27.07.1989 in respect of the sam Order VI Rule 17 CPC was also fil r, the said suit for permanent injuncti sent suit for specific performance cam ontested by the defendant by filing f the agreement to sell dated 26.08.19 were not disputed. However, it w ange the balance sale consideration Sub-Registrar, Nuh on 31.05.199 mained present in the office of the Su leaded that the plaintiffs were not rea ntract and lacked sufficient funds to p ant also raised objections regardi n, estoppel, improper valuation a pleaded that the present suit was barr received was i.e. on ir part of ale deed. , along t avoided d earlier the same lso filed junction ce came filing a .08.1988 r, it was ration of 05.1990, the Sub- ready ds to pay arding ion and as barred PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 under Order II injunction based subsequently wit suit. 5. On t ten issues includ evidence, the lea the agreement to earnest money w continuous readi learned trial Cou CPC were not at decided on merit sale deed on the Consequently, th decree dated 25.1 6. Agg the defendant pr also stood dismis 7. Lear judgments and de plaintiffs have agreement to s consideration of 1996 (O&M) -3- Rule 2 CPC, as the plaintiffs had based on the same agreement to se tly withdrawn without seeking permi On the basis of pleadings, the learn luding relief. After appreciating learned trial Court recorded catego ent to sell dated 26.08.1988 stood p oney was admitted, and the plaintif readiness and willingness to perfor al Court further held that the objecti not attracted, as the earlier suit for p merits. The plea that the plaintiffs ha on the target date was rejected on the suit for specific performance 25.10.1994. Aggrieved by the said judgment and ant preferred an appeal before the le missed. Hence the present regular s Learned counsel for the appella and decrees passed by the Courts belo have failed to prove their readiness to sell dated 26.08.1988, having ion of ₹24,000/- and stamp expen ffs had earlier filed a suit for permane t to sell qua suit property, which w permission of the Court to file a fre e learned trial Court framed as many iating the oral as well as documenta categorical findings that the execution tood proved, the receipt of ₹51,000/ laintiffs had successfully proved th perform their part of the contract. bjections raised under Order II Rule t for permanent injunction had not be had insufficient funds to execute t d on the basis of evidence on reco mance was decreed, vide judgment a ent and decree of the learned trial Cou the learned 1st Appellate Court, whi gular second appeal. ppellant–defendant contends that t ts below are legally unsustainable as t diness and willingness to perform t aving not arranged the balance sa expenses on the stipulated date ermanent ich was e a fresh many as mentary cution of ,000/- as ed their The Rule 2 not been ecute the record. ent and ourt, rt, which that the le as the form the nce sale date i.e. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 31.05.1990. It is Registrar, Nuh, t supported by the Both the Court completely brush was attested at 5. is further conten the balance sale Khan stated tha agreement did n plaintiffs, render submitted that th plaintiffs had ear of the same prop moved but the to file a fresh su passed by the Ho Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2 Vemari Vyankat 110. 8. Per concurrent judgm that the execution as earnest mone 1996 (O&M) -4- It is argued that while the defendant , the plaintiffs failed to mark the by the defendant’s evidence including Courts below have erred in relyin brushing aside the statement of PW d at 5.30 PM whereas office of the Re ontended that the plaintiffs had failed e sale consideration of Rs.24000/- on d that he was carrying Rs.8500/- did not contain any recital regardin rendering the inference drawn by the that the present suit was barred und ad earlier filed a suit for permanent in e property wherein an application un said suit was withdrawn on 31.10 resh suit. In support of his contentio the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Coffee IR 2014 (SC) 2301 and Vurimi nkata Radharani w/o Dhankoteshw Per contra, learned counsels for the judgments and decrees passed by th ecution of the agreement to sell dated money, and the plaintiffs’ readiness endant remained present before the Su ark their presence, a fact which is du luding testimony of DW-1 Balbir Sing relying upon affidavit Ex.P-2 wh f PW-1, who stated that the said affida the Registrar remains open till 5 P.M. failed to prove that they were carryi on the target date, as PW-5 Subh on 31.05.1990. Furthermore, t egarding delivery of possession to t by the Courts below as erroneous. It ed under Order II Rule 2 CPC, as t nent injunction on 26.07.1989 in respe tion under Order VI Rule 17 CPC 31.10.1991 without seeking permissi ntentions, he relies upon the judgmen offee Board Vs. M/s Ramesh Expo imi Pullarao s/o Satyanarayana V shwarrao and another (2020) 14 SC or the respondents–plaintiffs support t by the Courts below while contendi dated 26.08.1988, payment of ₹51,00 diness and willingness, including th Sub- is duly ir Singh. while affidavit P.M. It carrying Subhan ore, the to the us. It is , as the n respect was rmission dgments xports na Vs. 4 SCC pport the ntending 51,000/- ing their PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 presence before t the evidence of 2 CPC and other interference by t upon the judgme another Vs. Kav LRs and another decided on 09.04 this Court in M/ No.2736 of 2007 Harwati passed i 9. I ha paper book as we 10. It is plaintiff must ave the terms of the of the Specific R plaintiff right fro the suit by the C performance. T the contract an performance. Wh contract, which conduct of the pl 1996 (O&M) -5- efore the Sub-Registrar, Nuh on 31.05 ce of PW-1 to PW-5. It was contended other objections raised by the appellan e by this Court is warranted. In sup udgments passed by the Hon’ble Su Kavita Ganashamdas (2015) 5 SCC other Vs. Rajmani and others passed 09.04.2025 as well as the judgments M/s R.C. Sood & Company Ltd. f 2007 and the connected case on 1 assed in RSA No.1046 of 2016 decided I have heard learned counsel for as well as the case laws cited with the It is trite that in order to obtain a de ust aver and prove that he has always f the contract, which are to be perfor cific Relief Act, ‘readiness and willi ght from the date of entering into the a the Court and it is a condition preced There is a distinction between rea ct and both ingredients are neces ce. While readiness means the capaci hich would include his financial po plaintiff. In the present case, PW .05.1990, stood duly proved throu tended that the plea under Order II Ru ppellant were rightly rejected and that In support of their contention, they le Supreme Court in Rathnavathi a SCC 223; P. Nagaraj (dead) throu passed in Civil Appeal No.5131 of 20 ments passed by Coordinate Benches Ltd. Vs. Indra Sethi passed in RS on 11.12.2025 and Sunder Singh V ecided on 02.04.2019. l for the parties and have perused t ith their able assistance. in a decree for specific performance, t lways been ready and willing to perfo performed by him. As per Section 16 d willingness’ has to be proved by t the agreement to sell till the decretal precedent to obtain the relief of speci en readiness and willingness to perfo necessary for the relief of speci capacity of the plaintiff to perform t cial position, willingness relates to t e, PW-1 Ishak has categorically stated through Rule d that no rely thi and hrough of 2025 nches of in RSA gh Vs. used the ance, the perform ion 16(c) d by the cretal of f specific perform pecific form the s to the stated in PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 his statement tha contract as he wa i.e. 31.05.1990 ready to get the the contract. respondents-plain statement of PW PW-1 Ishak has before the Tehsil and he also show Rs.24,000/-, he w in his cross-exam of sale deed, they 5.30 PM on 31.0 of affidavit Ex.P unusual. Thus, t by both the Cour to perform their p 11. The present suit was merit. It is apt under:- “2. who 1996 (O&M) -6- nt that he has always been ready and he was present before the office of th with the balance sale considerati et the sale deed executed but the defe ct. The argument of learned cou plaintiffs had failed to prove readin of PW-5 that he was carrying Rs.8500 k has categorically stated in his cross Tehsildar with balance sale considera showed the said amount to the Tehsil , he was also carrying with him an am examination has categorically stated d, they had with them Rs.24000/-. Th n 31.05.1990 as has been stated by PW it Ex.P2 dubious as late hour work hus, this Court finds no illegality and e Courts below that respondents-plaint their part of the contract. The argument raised by learned c it was in the teeth of provisions of O is apt to reproduce provisions of Ord 2. Suit to include the whole claim whole of the claim which the plaint y and willing to perform his part of t e of the Sub Registrar on the target da ideration of Rs.24000/-, much less, s e defendant failed to honour his part d counsel for the appellant that t readiness and willingness based on t s.8500/- on 31.05.1990 has no force, s cross-examination that he was prese nsideration of Rs.24000/- on 31.05.19 Tehsildar. It was also stated that besid an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Even PW stated that when they came for executi The attestation of affidavit Ex.P2 by PW-5 does not render the executi workings in such departments is n ity and infirmity in the finding render plaintiffs were always ready and willi rned counsel for the appellant that t of Order II Rule 2 CPC has also of Order II Rule 2 CPC, which read laim.—(1) Every suit shall include t laintiff is entitled to make in respect art of the rget date less, still is part of that the d on the force, as s present .05.1990 t besides en PW-5 ecution Ex.P2 at xecution ts is not rendered d willing that the also no read as ude the pect of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 the clai (2) in re shal relin (3) mor all o cour relie 12. Ord entirety of the c action, though he CPC further pr omission. It stipu sue for any portio respect of the po other hand, addre same cause of ac suing for the omi 13. In o ingredients are re (i) th that (2) t mor 1996 (O&M) -7- the cause of action; but a plaintiff claim in order to bring the suit withi (2) Relinquishment of part of claim in respect of, or intentionally relinqu shall not afterwards sue in respe relinquished. (3) Omission to sue for one of sev more than one relief in respect of th all or any of such reliefs; but if he court, to sue for all such reliefs, he relief so omitted.” Order II Rule 2(1) CPC mandates the claim to which he is entitled in ugh he is permitted to relinquish any er prescribes the legal consequenc It stipulates that where a plaintiff inte portion of his claim, he is barred from portion so omitted or relinquished , addresses the omission to claim all or e of action. In such circumstances, th he omitted reliefs, unless prior leave of In order to attract the rigorous of are required to be satisfied:- ) that the second suit was in respe that on which the previous suit was b (2) that in respect of that cause of more than one relief; ntiff may relinquish any portion of within the jurisdiction of any court. claim.—Where a plaintiff omits to s linquishes, any portion of his claim, espect of the portion so omitted f several reliefs.—A person entitled of the same cause of action may sue f he omits, except with the leave of t fs, he shall not afterwards sue for a ndates that a plaintiff must include t tled in respect of a particular cause h any part of that claim. Order II Rule equences of both relinquishment a iff intentionally relinquishes or omits ed from subsequently instituting a suit uished. Order II Rule 2(3) CPC, on t all or any of the reliefs arising from t ces, the plaintiff is precluded from la ave of the court has been obtained. us of Order II Rule 2 CPC, followi n respect of the same cause of action t was based; se of action the plaintiff was entitled of his urt. to sue aim, he tted or itled to sue for of the for any lude the cause of Rule 2 ent and omits to a suit in , on the from the rom later ollowing action as ntitled to PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 (3) with whic 14. The Powergen Corpo another 2025 SC laid down under “47. i. Th and be v ii. aris mus actio suit. iii. actio nece his r rela defe pray plai 1996 (O&M) -8- (3) that being thus entitled to mo without leave obtained from the Cou which the second suit had been filed The Hon’ble Supreme Court in th orporation Ltd Vs. M/s Chemplas 5 SCC Online SC 82 after thorough under Order II Rule 2 CPC has held as 47. On a conspectus of the aforesa The object of Order II Rule 2 is and the provision is founded on the be vexed twice for one and the same The mandate of Order II Rule 2 arising in respect of one and the sa must not be misunderstood to mea action arising from the same transa suit. iii. Several definitions have been action” and it can safely be said to m necessary for the plaintiff to prove his right to the judgment of the Cou relation whatsoever to the defen defendant, nor does it depend upon prayed for by the plaintiff but ref plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a to more than one relief the plainti he Court omitted to sue for the relief f n filed. t in the judgment passed in Cuddalo plast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited a roughly deliberating upon the princip eld as under:- resaid discussion, what follows is tha 2 is to prevent the multiplicity of su n the principle that a person shall n ame cause. le 2 is the inclusion of the whole cla e same cause of action, in one suit mean that all the different causes ansaction must be included in a sing een given to the phrase “cause d to mean - “every fact which would rove, if traversed, in order to supp Court”. Such a cause of action has efence that may be set up by t pon the character of the relief which t refers to the media upon which t at a conclusion in his favour. plaintiff, relief for dalore ed and rinciples is that: of suits all not e claim suit. It uses of single use of ould be upport has no by the ich is ich the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 iv. appl the s each dete caus form clai be d the iden v. Th Rule sam in r than plai the r vi. evid actio relin 1996 (O&M) -9- Similarly, several tests have b applicability of Order II Rule 2 to a the same heavily depends on the par each case, it can be said that a determine whether the claim in the cause of action distinct from that former suit. Additionally, if the e claims is different, then the causes o be different. Furthermore, it is nec the two suits to be identical in sub identical. The defendant who takes shelter u Rule 2(3) must establish that (a) the same cause of action as that on whi in respect of that cause of action, than one relief; and (c) being thus e plaintiff, without any leave obtained the relief for which the second suit h The defendant must also have evidence in order to establish that t action between both the suits a relinquishment of a larger relief on ve been laid out to determine t to a suit. While it is acknowledged th e particular facts and circumstances at a correct and reliable test is the new suit is in fact founded upon that which was the foundation of t he evidence required to support t ses of action can also be considered necessary for the causes of action substance and not merely technica lter under the bar imposed by Order ) the second suit was in respect of t which the previous suit was based; ion, the plaintiff was entitled to mo us entitled to more than one relief, t ined from the Court, omitted to sue uit had been filed. have produced the earlier plaint hat there is an identity in the causes ts and that there was a delibera f on the part of the plaintiff. ne the ed that nces of t is to upon a of the ort the ered to tion in nically rder II t of the ed; (b) o more lief, the sue for aint in uses of iberate PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 vii. satis infer 15. In th respondents-plain plaintiffs were no date for executio performance was filed. Though th injunction on 08. was ultimately w reveals that the a before the suit w injunction and th actions and furth at the time of fil plaintiffs were al Supreme Court (supra) has made inclusion of the w in one suit. How causes of action and therefore, t 1996 (O&M) -10- vii. Since the plea is a technica satisfactorily and cannot be pre inferential reasoning. In the case in hand, the suit for perm plaintiffs on 26.07.1989 and on ere not entitled to claim the relief of xecution of the sale deed was 31.05 ce was immature on the date when the ugh the application for amendment w on 08.11.1990 for adding the relief of tely withdrawn on 31.10.1991. A pe t the amendment application had been suit was allowed to be withdrawn. and the suit for specific performanc furthermore, the appellant-defendant of filing of the former suit for perm ere also entitled to seek the relief of s Court in the case of Cuddalore Po s made it crystal clear that the manda f the whole claim arising in respect of However, it must not be misunderst ction arising from the same transactio ore, the subsequent suit filed by t nical bar, it has to be establish presumed merely on the basis or permanent injunction was filed by t d on the said date, the responden lief of specific performance as the targ 31.05.1990, thus, the relief of speci en the suit for permanent injunction w ent was filed in the suit for permane lief of specific performance but the s A perusal of the entire record nowhe d been allowed by the learned trial Co awn. Moreover, the suit for permane rmance are based on different cause endant has miserably failed to prove th r permanent injunction, the responden ef of specific performance. The Hon’b e Powergen Corporation Ltd.’s ca mandate of Order II Rule 2 CPC is t pect of one and the same cause of actio nderstood to mean that all the differe saction must be included in a single s by the respondents-plaintiffs seeki blished sis of d by the ondents- he target ecific tion was ermanent t the suit nowhere ial Court ermanent cause of rove that ondents- Hon’ble ’s case is the f action, different ingle suit seeking PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 specific performa be barred by the p 16. The suit was in respe was based and entitled to more leave obtained f second suit had b was not allowed does not take a performance in a 17. The Coffee Board (su appellant, as the Board’s case, th dependent on the grounds of dispa same was purcha that the period of both the suits, w that eventuality i Rule 2 CPC. In injunction contai bargain between 1996 (O&M) -11- rformance of the agreement to sell da y the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CP The appellant-defendant has misera respect of the same cause of action in respect of that cause of actio more than one relief at that particul ined from the Court, they omitted to t had been filed. It is also axiomatic lowed and was simply withdrawn, w take away the right of the responde ce in an independent suit. The judgments relied upon the by le (supra) and Vurimi Pullarao (sup as they are not applicable to the fac ase, the two separate reliefs were cla on the same fact being the omission disparity in the suits were the amoun purchased. It was categorically note riod of purchase i.e. between 11.08.19 its, which were filed within a span of ality it was concluded that subseque In the case of Vurimi Pullarao, contained a recital of the agreemen tween the parties; the payment of ea sell dated 26.08.1988 cannot be held e 2 CPC. iserably failed to prove that the seco ction as that on which the previous s f action, the respondents-plaintiffs w articular point in time and without a tted to sue for the relief for which t atic that the application for amendme wn, which in the opinion of this Cou spondents-plaintiffs to sue for speci e by learned counsel for the appellants (supra) do not rescue the cause of t he facts of the instant case. In Cof ere claimed by the respondent-plaint ission of duty by the appellant and on amount of coffee and the dates when t y noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Co .08.1982 and 18.08.1982 was common pan of 9 days of each other and thus, sequent suit was barred under Order ao, the plaint of the first suit filed f eement to sell; the price fixed for t of earnest money; the handing over e held to e second ious suit were hout any hich the endment s Court, specific ellants in se of the Coffee plaintiff d only when the e Court mmon to thus, in Order II filed for for the over of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 possession; the d the contract and arisen when the contract much pr was entitled to s relief in the initi had already arise the absence of an the relief of spec Order II Rule 2(3 cannot be said to the time of instit have a cause of denial by the a injunction was fi 18. In t counsel for the re under:- “22 Ord filin cons 25. we f 1996 (O&M) -12- ; the demand for performance and the and thus, the cause of action for the n the plaintiff had notice of denial uch prior to the date of institution of th d to sue for specific performance but e initial suit. Since the cause of actio y arisen, the Hon’ble Supreme Court h e of any leave obtained from the cour f specific performance, the second sui ule 2(3) CPC. However, in the prese said to have omitted to seek a relief th f instituting the suit for permanent inju se of action to seek specific perform the appellant–defendant in existenc was filed. In the judgment of Rathnavathi r the respondents-plaintiffs, the Hon’b “22. Coming first to the legal quest Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is attracted so filing the suit for specific perform considered opinion, the bar is not at xxxx xxxx 25. In the instant case when we a we find that the bar contained in O d the failure of the defendant to perfo for the suit for specific performance h denial by the defendant to perform t n of the first suit. Therefore, the plaint ce but however, omitted to sue for su f action to suit for specific performan ourt had arrived at the conclusion that e court for having omitted the claim f nd suit would be hit by the provisions present case, the respondents–plainti lief that was already available to them nt injunction. At that stage, they did n performance, as there was no notice xistence when the suit for permane (supra) as relied upon by learn Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed uestion as to whether bar contained ed so as to non-suit the plaintiff fro rformance of the agreement, in o ot attracted. xxxx we apply the aforementioned princip in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is not attract perform ance had form the plaintiff for such ormance n that in claim for isions of plaintiffs them at y did not notice of ermanent learned served as ined in ff from in our inciple, tracted PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 beca suits 25.1 base her clea to fi sam by D date 25.2 foun simu 28. for base of s prio in O 29. held spec caus both defe It i appl plea obta 2 CP 1996 (O&M) -13- because of the distinction in the c suits: 25.1. So far as the suit for perman based on a threat given to the plain her from the suit house on 2-1-20 clear from reading Para 17 of the p to file suit for specific performance same was based on non-performan by Defendant 2 in the plaintiff's f dated 6-3-2000 to Defendant 2 to pe 25.2. In our considered opinion, founded on different causes of a simultaneously… xxxx xxxx 28. We cannot accept the submiss for the appellants when she conten based on identical pleadings and wh of specific performance of agreem prior to filing of the first suit, the se in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 29. The submission has a fallacy held above, cause of action in tw specific performance could not hav cause of action of the first suit. Seco both suits were similar to some ex defendants to raise the plea of bar It is the cause of action which applicability of bar under Order pleadings. For these reasons, it wa obtain any leave from the cour CPC for filing the second suit. he cause of action for filing the t manent injunction is concerned, it w laintiff by the defendants to disposse 2000 and 9-1-2000. This would the plaint. So far as the cause of acti nce of the agreement is concerned, t mance of agreement dated 15-2-19 ff's favour despite giving legal not to perform her part. ion, both the suits were, therefo of action and hence could be fil xxxx mission of the learned Senior Coun ntended that since both the suits we d when cause of action to sue for rel reement was available to the plain e second suit was hit by bar contain acy for two basic reasons. Firstly, two suits being different, a suit t have been instituted on the basis Secondly, merely because pleadings e extent did not give any right to t bar contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CP hich is material to determine der 2 Rule 2 CPC and not merely t t was not necessary for the plaintiff court as provided in Order 2 Ru he two , it was possess uld be action ed, the 1989 notice refore, e filed ounsel ts were r relief laintiff ntained stly, as uit for asis of ings of to the CPC. ne the ely the intiff to 2 Rule PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1667-1996 30. depr cour the in b relie 19. In v Pankajakshi (De and others (201 (2019) 17 SCC Singh (dead) thr law are not requi High Court whos Punjab Courts Ac 20. In v by learned couns with the concurr upheld. Resultan 21. Misc January 14, 202 Pankaj* Whe Whe 1996 (O&M) -14- 30. Since the plea of Order 2 R depriving the plaintiff to file the se court to carefully examine the entir the cause of action on which the sui in both the suits and lastly, the legal reliefs in both the suits.” In view of the judgments passed b i (Dead) through Legal Represent (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur V CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dea ) through LRs and others (2023) S t required to be framed in second appe t whose jurisdiction is circumscribed urts Act, 1918. In view of the aforesaid facts and ci counsel for the cut no ice and this C oncurrent finding rendered by both t esultantly, instant regular second appea Miscellaneous application(s), pendin (AM , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2 Rule 2 CPC, if upheld, results he second suit, it is necessary for t entire factual matrix of both the su e suits are founded, the reliefs claim legal provisions applicable for grant ssed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court sentatives and others Vs. Chandri aur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and othe (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurchar 23) SCC Online SC 875, questions d appeal before the Punjab and Harya ribed by provisions of Section 41 of t and circumstances, the arguments rais this Court finds no ground to interfe both the Courts below and the same appeal is dismissed. pending if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ults in for the e suits, aimed rant of Court in ndrika others charan stions of Haryana 41 of the ts raised interfere same is sed of. EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.22 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh