THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1384 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The defendants in O.S.No.1292 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam are the appellants. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,000/- by way of damages from the appellants with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of filing the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 30.03.2007. Thereupon, the respondent filed A.S.No.224 of 2007 in the Court of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. The appeal was allowed in part, awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages, on 22.09.2008. The plea of the respondent was that himself and appellant No.1 are neighbours being the allottees of plot Nos.32 and 33 respectively of Ex-Servicemen Colony, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam and that after constructing a house in the plot, with the permission of the authority concerned, he completed the construction of compound wall, around his plot in the year 1994. The appellants are said to have demolished the wall on 17.07.2000 highhandedly. It was also mentioned that he filed O.S.No.1706 of 2000 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for injunction, against the appellants as regards the interference with the wall and that the suit was decreed on 28.03.2002. He pleaded that the cost of the demolished portion of the wall is about Rs.14,000/- and that he suffered mental agony on account of the highhanded action estimated at Rs.26,000/- and prayed for a decree. Appellant No.1 filed a written statement and the same was adopted by appellant No.2. They disputed the facts pleaded by the respondent as regards construction of compound wall or the expenditure incurred therefor. They admitted that the respondent is their neighbour on the eastern side in plot No.32 but denied the allegation that they have demolished the wall on the eastern side. They denied the allegation that they have caused any injuries to the respondent or his wife. The appellants have also mentioned that A.S.No.67 of 2003 was filed against the decree in O.S.No.1706 of 2000 in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and that the same was pending. Further case of the appellants was that though the dimension of each plot was 40 feet from East to West and 45 feet from North to South, the respondent has constructed a wall encroaching into the property of the appellants and the matter was taken to the President and Secretary of the New Ex- Servicemen Colony Residents Welfare Association. The respondent is said to have represented that with slight deviation, the construction of the compound wall was made for reasons of Vasthu and after several sittings and with the intervention of the elders, the respondent himself removed the objectionable portion to the extent there was an encroachment into the land of the appellants. They stated that the respondent is a quarrelsome person. The trial Court framed two issues for its consideration, namely “(a) whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the defendants as prayed for and (b) whether there is cause of action to file the suit as contended by the defendants.” The suit was dismissed and in the appeal, the lower appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely “whether the decree and judgment of the lower Court is sustainable or not” and the appeal was allowed. Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable inasmuch as he filed O.S.No.1706 of 2000 on the same facts and the subsequent suit was barred under Order II C.P.C. He contends that even after pleading that the wall was demolished, the respondent obtained a decree for perpetual injunction and it was not even alleged that any steps were taken by the appellants after the decree was passed. Learned counsel submits that the lower appellate Court has committed serious error in decreeing the suit without there being any factual basis. Sri M.V.S.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that there is nothing in law, which prohibits filing of separate suits for the relief of injunction on the one hand and damages on the other. He submits that though the lower appellate Court recorded a finding to the effect that the wall was demolished, meagre damages were awarded. He submits that the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal: (a) Whether a plaintiff in a suit filed for perpetual injunction can file another suit on the same facts, against the same party, for damages? On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were filed. Ex.A1 is the estimation for construction of the wall; Ex.A2 is a letter, dated 20.07.2000; Ex.A3 is photographs; Ex.A4 a bill from the Studio; Ex.A5 is notice, dated 19.07.2000; Ex.A9 is the copy of the decree in O.S.No.1706 of 2000 and Ex.A8 is the decree and judgment in A.S.No.67 of 2003. Exs.A6 and A7 are letters issued by the Contractor. On behalf of the appellants, appellant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced. In his plaint, the respondent clearly mentioned that the wall was constructed by him in the year 1994 and a part of the same in between plot numbers 32 and 33 was demolished by the appellants on 17.07.2000. Ex.A5 is the notice, dated 19.07.2000. In the notice, it was mentioned: “My client constructed the boundary wall in the year 1974 to the schedule property. That you are adjacent land owner of property for plot No.33, which is situated in the eastern side of my client, purchased the same from Ex-serviceman without any authority. That you both came from Madras and intended to settle in Visakhapatnam. On 17.07.2000, that you both engaged the labour and demolished the boundary wall in the eastern side of my client’s property.” It is important to mention that the respondent filed O.S.No.1706 of 2000 before the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, on 21.07.2000. By that time, the alleged demolition has taken place. However, he prayed for the relief of injunction as though the wall was intact. Though in Ex.A5, damages to the extent of Rs.50,000/- were claimed, he did not pray any relief in O.S.No.1706 of 2000. That suit was decreed. With that, the respondent ought not to have had any grievance. It is only in case the appellants have taken any further steps against him that the cause of action for filing another suit would have arisen. The present suit was filed after O.S.No.1706 of 2000 was decreed. The very basis for filing the suit was Ex.A5, which was issued way back on 19.07.2000. It was not the case of the respondent that any developments have taken place after O.S.No.1706 of 2000 was filed or decreed. The respondent entertained the idea of claiming damages against the appellants in the year 2000 itself when he issued Ex.A5. If he wanted to pursue that remedy, he ought to have claimed the relief in O.S.No.1706 of 2000 itself. Rule 1 of Order II C.P.C. prohibits splitting of cause of action. Though the trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not take this aspect into account, being a pure question of law, this Court can take note of it. “Rules 1 and 2 of Order II C.P.C. read as under: 1. Frame of suit: Every suit shall as far as practicable be framed so as to afford ground for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. 2. Suit to include the whole claim: (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim, which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. ( 2 ) Relinquishment of part of claim: Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs: A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Explanation: for the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.” The cause of action for claiming damages, if any, against the appellants has arisen when the alleged demolition has taken place. In case the respondent wanted to split the cause of action, he ought to have done so with the leave of the Court. Failure on his part would result in bar of a fresh suit for part of the cause of action. It is not uncommon that the same cause of action would give rise to the right to claim different reliefs. The purpose underlying Order II C.P.C. is that all the reliefs that arise out of a common cause of action must be claimed together and law prohibits splitting of the same. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed above is answered in favour of the appellants. On merits also, the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. It is rather unfortunate that an Officer of the cadre of the District Judge did not evince required amount of interest even to frame sentences, let alone, ensuring consistency of reasoning. The concern of this Court is not about the linguistic skills and conduct of the Officer concerned. It is only about the fact that the judgments rendered by the Courts are public documents and they happen to be read by the persons of high learning and status in the society. If the judgment does not accord with the ordinary tenets of grammar, a reader would form a poor opinion about it and the blame has to be borne by the institution, than the Officer concerned. In the instant case, the lower appellate Court rendered a brief judgment. Unfortunately, it is full of grammatical mistakes and many sentences do not make any sense at all. For instance, the first sentence of para 11 reads: “On go through the evidence of P.W.1, he submitted that the wall was demolished by defendants”. Referring to a contention advanced on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the trial Court committed an error, noticeable in the last paragraph of the judgment, the learned appellate Judge observed: “The main contention of the appellant/plaintiff is that the lower Court omitted grave error discussed in favour of the plaintiff in the issues and in the last para of the issues, it is noted that it is answered against the plaintiff”. To indicate that the parties did not make any effort to get a Commissioner appointed to survey the respective plots, the learned Judge observed: “Both the parties even though file several suit, they did not got appoint a Commissioner to survey the lands or they have at liberty to approach the M.R.O. to depute a Surveyor to got survey their lands, but they did not do so”. Another sentence can be presented as sample. It reads: “It is also considered that the age of defendant No.1 is very old and he is unable to demolish any acts but defendant No.2 is son and they may got demolished the wall”. This Court is pained to observe that if these sentences are read even by a student of 5th or 6th Class from a school of ordinary standard, he would feel better equipped in language, than the Officer. That does not augur well for the institution. Hence, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registrar (Vigilance) is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, so that the feasibility of sending the Officer concerned for a refresher course in English language and in particular, grammar, in the A.P. State Judicial Academy, is considered. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.12.2011. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (b/o) kdl