MP 1 CRA89_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 391 OF 2009 Mr. Immacus Dias ... Applicant Versus Alzira Variava and others ... Respondents Mr. Dinkar Rao for Applicant. Mr. A. A. Siddiquie for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 P. C. : The application challenges the order dated 9th December 2009 vide which the preliminary objection raised by the present applicant regarding tenability of the suit, came to be rejected. 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in view of the Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the second suit was not tenable inasmuch as the relief which is now claimed could have been very well claimed in the first suit itself. 3. The learned Trial Court has found that the relief claimed in the earlier suit was regarding the declaration that the defendants were not entitled to utilize the additional FSI, whereas, in the present suit the relief claimed was for mandatory order to give possession of the flat. 4. No perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court to warrant interference. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)