(1.) THIS order will govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 240/2010 and Civil Revision No. 242/2010. For the purposes of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 200/2010. Since the facts of these three Civil Suits are almost similar and on the common grounds, the applications made by the applicant under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) were rejected by the trial Court, the controversy being the same, by this common order all the Civil Revisions are being disposed of.
(2.) THE respondents No. 1 and 2 have fled a suit claiming inter alia the reliefs to the effect of declaration of their title on the suit land and declaration that the agreement dated 7.7.1997 is null and void and the agreement executed by the defendant No. 1/applicant on 20.6.2000, was not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1/applicant mainly on the ground that earlier a suit was fled by one Amar Singh, son of the respondents/plaintiffs against the defendant No. 1/applicant and the said suit was withdrawn without reserving any right. The said suit was fled by said Amar Singh in his capacity as Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs/respondents and they were also impleaded as defendants in the said suit, who were proceeded ex -parte. Since the suit was withdrawn, for the very same cause of action, a subsequent suit could not be fled by the respondents/plaintiffs.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that though earlier suit was fled by Power of Attorney holder of the respondents/plaintiffs, but since the executants of the Power of Attorney were also impleaded as party in the said suit, all the pleas whatever were available to the said persons were required to be raised in the suit. Believing bonafidely on the Power of Attorney, certain actions were taken and, therefore, if the suit was withdrawn without reserving any rights, even the executants of the Power of Attorney, the present respondents/plaintiffs in subsequent suit were estopped to raise any plea in respect of said cause of action nor any suit was maintainable in terms of provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. Such a plea was effectively raised by the defendant No. 1/applicant, but the trial Court committed an error of law in not considering such pleas in appropriate manner and rejecting the application of the defendant No. 1/applicant, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the application fled by the defendant No. 1/applicant is liable to be allowed.