URMILA SINGH Vs. REBA MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi in support of the revision application and Sri Naresh Prasad on behalf of the opposite party.

(2.) This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 16.4.01 passed by the Subordinate Judge XII, Patna in Title suit no. 4/68 (A.K. Mitra and another Vs. P.D. Sinha and others) whereby the court below has rejected the petition of the defendants filed under Order 14, Rule 2 read with section 151 CPC. in the said petition, defendant no.1 prayed that subsequent Title suit no. 19/68 is barred under Order 2, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure as the subject matter of the two suits is constituted of the same facts. Defendants in order to establish the said plea relied on the averments made in the plaint of the two suits which is contained in annexures 1 and 2 of this civil revision application. Perusal of the plaint of the Title suit no. 4/ 68 indicates that the same has been filed alleging the suit premises was let out to the defendant no.1. There was arrears of rent for which letters were being exchanged between the parties. In one of the letter tenant refuted the title of the landlord to the property and proclaimed himself the owner. This led plaintiffs to request the Patna Electric Supply Company to disconnect electric connection in the premises and on 28.12.67 connection was snapped. The defendant no.1 thereafter independently took steps for restoration of the connection with the Patna Electric Supply Company defendant no. 2 and before electric supply could be restored. Plaintiffs filed Title suit no. 4/68 on 12.1.68 to injunct Electric Supply Company from providing connection to the landlord. The other suit i.e. Title suit no. 19/68 against defendants was filed on 2.2.68 on similar facts with different relief of eviction and recovery of rent.

(3.) The court below as stated above under the impugned order has rejected the petition to unsuit the plaintiffs from prosecuting subsequent suit i.e. T.S. 19/68 on the ground that two suits are based on different cause of action and second suit is not barred under the provision of Order 2, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure which provides for seeking complete relief.