V.KUMAR Vs. R.NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.712 of 2015 in O.S.No.88 of 2015 dtd. 28/3/2018 on the file of the learned learned District Munsif, Thiruvarur, thereby dismissing the petition filed for rejection of plaint.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendants 2 and 4 and the first respondent is the plaintiff. The first respondent filed the suit for declaration in respect of the suit schedule property and mandatory injunction along with the recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. While pending the suit, the petitioners filed a petition for rejection of plaint and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect of very same reliefs, the first respondent already filed a suit in the year 1999 in O.S.No.135 of 1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thiruvarur in respect of part of the suit property. In respect of other part of the suit schedule property for the very same prayer, he filed a suit in O.S.No.136 of 1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thiruvarur. Both the suits were tried and dismissed together by the judgment and decree dtd. 29/1/2015. Thereafter, the present impugned suit has been laid by the first respondent on the very same cause of action, which was arisen in the year 1994 for the very same relief in respect of the very same property. Therefore, the suit itself is barred by limitation. The suit is also hit by Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. When the cause of action arose for filing of the earlier suits, the present reliefs sought for in the present suit was very much available to the first respondent at the time of earlier suits. Even then, without leave of the Court as contemplated under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the present impugned suit has been laid. The present suit has been filed only after dismissal of the earlier suits, that too after giving a finding on issue that the suits are not maintainable without a prayer of the declaration. In the earlier suits, the petitioners categorically denied the title of the first respondent over the suit property by way of written statement, even then, the first respondent failed to amend the prayer for a declaratory decree. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit itself barred by limitation and the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2020 (45) CTC 471 (Dahiben -vs- Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) thr L.Rs. .00), 2020 (10) SCC 601 (Raghwendra Sharan Singh -vs- Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) and 2019 (4) CTC 610 (Prodod Kumar -vs- Zalak Singh).