HAFIZ NIZAMUDDIN Vs. KAUSHALAYA DEVI WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the civil revision applications, the question is same. The opposite party in both the civil revision applications is one and the same and she has appeared. Parties have been heard and with their consent, this revision application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) IT appears that the opposite party had filed a suit for declaring a sale deed purported to have been executed by one Jayanti Sah in favour of the two petitioners of the two civil revision applications as void and unenforceable. In the plaint of that suit, she had pleaded that the two petitioners of these two civil revision applications were her tenants. They were in default. When she went to demand the rent, they disclosed that they had purchased the property from the said Jayanti Sah by a registered sale deed. They further started demolishing the wall of the premises which gave cause of action to the opposite party to institute the earlier suit tor declaration that the two sale deeds executed by the said Jayanti Sah in favour of the two petitioners of these two civil revision applications be declared void and unenforceable. This suit was decreed. In this suit, admittedly, the opposite party stated that the petitioners were her tenants and were in default but chose not to seek any relief as against them on this count. Suit being decreed, it was not interfered with upto the Supreme Court. Now the said plaintiff -opposite party brought the present suit stating that the petitioners of these present revision applications and defendants of the two suits now instituted were her tenants and were in default and, as such, were liable to be evicted as also liable to eviction on grounds of personal necessity in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. In the said two suits against the two petitioners as instituted by the opposite party -plaintiff, an objection in terms of Order 2, Rule 2 was taken. It was urged that the factum of tenancy had been pleaded in the earlier suit so also the factum of default of rent. In terms of Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC, the plaintiff ought to have pleaded and sought for eviction and having not sought for eviction in terms of Order 2, Rule 2, she was now precluded from bringing the present suit. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the reliefs not having been prayed, which were available, cannot now be prayed in a separate suit. On the other hand, on behalf of plaintiff -opposite party, it is submitted that there were two distinct and separate causes of action, one related to creation of a cloud on her title. That was acted upon and the suit filed to remove that cloud which was created about the sale deed in favour of the two defendants -petitioners. There was a separate cause of action not inter -related or inter -dependant on the other cause of action being default and consequential eviction. Apart from that, it is submitted that default being a continuing default, fresh cause of action arose. Further, personal necessity arose giving yet another cause which was not there at the earlier point of time. Therefore, the second suit now is maintainable and the trial Court rightly rejected the objection of the two defendants -petitioners. Having considered the matter, I find that the trial Court has committed no jurisdictional error in the matter. The cause of action to file the first suit was different and distinct from the cause of action to seek eviction. Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC contemplates and predicates all rights emanating from a single cause of action should be settled by a single suit and not that all different causes of action should be put into one suit.

(3.) I , therefore, find no illegality in the order. These two civil revision applications are dismissed accordingly.