1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Appeal against Order No. 21 of 2010 (Tulshiram Laxman Ramteke and another ...VERSUS... Dinkar Urkuda Belkhode and others) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. H.N.Potbhare Advocate for Appellant. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 09th March, 2010. This appeal arises out of the order of the District Judge-1, Warora, dated 10th August, 2009 allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 226 of 2008 and remanding the suit to the trial court for decision on merits. The trial court had dismissed the suit as being barred by Order II Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bar was held applicable in view of the fact that the respondents have filed another civil suit on the same cause of action. The respondents have filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.10/2004, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Divn., Chimur. Thereafter, they have filed the second suit in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur on the same cause of action, but adding one prayer thereto and also joining the State of Maharashtra as a party defendant to the suit. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the second suit filed on the same cause of action with a prayer added to it is barred by provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC and hence, the trial court had rightly dismissed the suit. I find no merit in the submission because there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars filing of the second suit on the same cause of action. The Code of Civil Procedure instead makes provision of Section 10 for stay of the subsequent suit on the same cause of action until the earlier suit is heard and decided. The provision of Order II Rule 2 CPC comes into picture only in the event of the earlier suit having been disposed of for some reason or the other and the subsequent suit being filed for the reliefs which had not been included in the earlier suit. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the Appeal against Order is dismissed. No order as to costs. Civil Application (CAA) No.23 of 2010 In view of dismissal of the appeal, the present civil application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE. Diwale