C.R. No.6786 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6786 of 2006 Date of Decision: 31.1.2008 Ghumand Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Nishan Singh and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.M. Gupta, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 6. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner impugns an order dated 14.11.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Patiala, for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner filed an application, to amend the written statement, inter alia, by incorporating a plea that the instant suit is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. The learned trial Court dismissed the application. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents filed a suit on 18.7.1994 for recovery of money,based on rights flowing from an agreement dated 26.4.1993. The present suit, filed on 30.1.1999 also seeks to enforce rights flowing from the above agreement. As the relief in the present suit was not prayed for in the first suit, the instant suit is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, denies the C.R. No.6786 of 2006 2 aforementioned facts and states that though both suits are based upon rights that flow from the same agreement, the cause of action for the instant suit arose after the filing of the first suit. The learned trial Court,therefore, rightly dismissed the application for amendment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the facts disclose that parties executed an agreement dated 26.4.1993. As per the agreement, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.2,74,500/- to the respondents. As per another covenant in the agreement, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.1,03,000/- to a bank, so that the respondents property could be released from mortgage. The respondents alleging that the petitioner had not paid a sum of Rs.2,74,500/-, filed a suit for recovery on 18.7.1994. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondents filed another suit on 30.1.999, alleging therein that the petitioner had not paid the agreed sum of Rs.1,03,000/- to the bank. The bank, thereafter, served notices of demand dated 20.8.1996 and 13.9.1996.. The respondents deposited the amount of Rs.1,03,000/- on 20.9.1996 and the bank released their property from the mortgage. It was, thus, claimed that as the petitioner had failed to comply with their obligation under the agreement, a decree for recovery of Rs.1,03,000/- etc. be passed. A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly disclose that though the rights of the parties flow from the agreement dated 26.4.1993, the cause of action to institute the second suit, arose after the filing of the first suit. The first suit was filed on 18.7.1994. The second suit was filed on 30.1.1999. The cause of action for the second suit was the payment C.R. No.6786 of 2006 3 made by the respondents of a sum of Rs.1,03,000/- to the bank on 20.9.1996, in accordance with notices of demand served by the bank on 20.8.1996 and 13.9.1996. Thus, as the cause of action for the second suit arose after the filing of the first suit, the second suit could not be barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. The learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application for amendment. As regards the other prayers for amendment, namely, the prayers with respect to fraud and misrepresentation etc., a perusal of the petitioner's written statement discloses that the existing averments are sufficient to deal with these amendments. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned order does not call for interference, the present revision petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 28.2.2008. 31.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE