VONEET SHARMA Vs. ROHIT SRIPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reliefs prayed for in the present suit for partition and rendition of accounts is in respect of Apartment No. L-6, (First Floor), Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and Apartment No. 707, Vardhman Apartments, Mayur Vihar Extension, New Delhi. A permanent injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating, disposing off or encumbering them the suit property in any manner whatsoever has been prayed for. Because of the view taken by me, I do not propose to go into the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the suit has been instituted because of a marital discord between the parties. An interim injunction was granted on 25.2.1997 when the suit came up for hearing on the first occasion. As recorded in the order dated 8.8.1997 there is no dispute between the parties that the property is in their joint names. The defendant has filed an application for vacation of the exparte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Various grounds have been raised including an objection that the suit is not maintainable because of the previous filing and pending of two suits in the District Court, bearing No. S. 57/1997 and S. 58/1997. Certified copies of the plaints in both suits have been filed by the defendant along with the application. The prayers in S. No. 57/1997, substantially, was in respect of the passing of a decree restraining the tenant from making any further payment to the defendant and to pay the entire rent to the plaintiff for the remaining period of lease or till the plaintiff had realised her share, being half of the rent that had accrued. It is further prayed that the present defendant be restrained from renewing the lease deed or to enter into any other kind of transaction (presumably in respect of the property in suit). The same reliefs have been prayed for in the Second Suit bearing No. 58/1997, though the tenant is different.

(2.) The defendant immediately filed replication of the plaint. Various grounds were raised in support to this application. The defendant had also filed applications under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in both those suits. In reply to which it was stated by the plaintiff that:

(3.) These suits were dismissed as withdrawn by Shri K.S. Mohi, Sub Judge, Delhi on 22.8.1997. It is not in dispute that while dismissing the suits the plaintiff neither prayed for nor obtained the leave of the Court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Order II, Rule 2 which reads as under, therefore, comes into consideration.