R.S.A.No.3901 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3901 of 2007 Date of Decision : 24.08.2009 Smt. Manti Devi and others ...Appellants Versus Kaptan Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for possession from the tenant after terminating their tenancy, was decreed. The sole ground to challenge the decree before this Court is that previously the plaintiffs have filed suit for possession. The said suit was dismissed in default in the presence of the counsel for the defendants and, therefore, the present suit is barred in terms of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has pointed out that earlier the plaintiffs have filed suit for possession alleging the defendants to be trespassers, whereas the present suit for possession has R.S.A.No.3901 of 2007 2 been filed after terminating the tenancy of the defendants, admitting the defendants to be tenant and, therefore, the cause of action in the previous suit was materially different from the cause of action in the present suit. Therefore, the suit is not barred under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that the earlier suit was for possession on the basis of unauthorized occupation of the premises by the defendants, whereas the present suit is for possession after termination of the tenancy of the tenant is not disputed by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the said fact, though both are the suit for possession, but the cause of action, which is bundle of facts necessary to grant relief is materially different i.e. unauthorized occupation in the previous suit and the authorized possession in the present suit for possession after termination of tenancy. Therefore, the dismissal of the previous suit for possession would not bar the present suit for possession. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 24.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE