M R SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. K NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. (Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the XVI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai dated 08.09.2006 dismissing the I.A.No.13244 of 2006 in O.S.No,6292 of 2004.) Inveighing the order dated 08.09.2006, passed by the learned XVI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in I.A.No.13244 of 2006 in O.S.No,6292 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) BOTH sides called absent.

(3.) INDUBITABLY and undisputedly, the earlier O.S.No,2336 of 2004 is for bare injunction and not for any other relief. However the subsequent suit as set out supra is for comprehensive reliefs. As such, the subsequent suit which is for comprehensive reliefs cannot be held to be one not tenable in view of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. The scope of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is entirely different, if a litigant deliberately and consciously refrain from suing the defendants by praying for certain reliefs, then in such a case, the subsequent suit would not be maintainable. But here, my above discussion supra would clearly indicate that, that was not the factual position. The lower Court correctly applied the law to the set of facts available in this case and hence no interference is warranted in this revision petition. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.