w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another v/s M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy


Company & Directors' Information:- ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899DL1965GOI004352

Company & Directors' Information:- VIRGO ENGINEERS LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U28939PN1987PLC043673

Company & Directors' Information:- T T G INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PLC014169

Company & Directors' Information:- V I P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L25200MH1968PLC013914

Company & Directors' Information:- A L M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14100DL1996PLC129067

Company & Directors' Information:- A L M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19111DL1996PLC129067

Company & Directors' Information:- A L M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74110DL1996PLC129067

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17121MH1991PLC257750

Company & Directors' Information:- S R INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L29246PB1989PLC009531

Company & Directors' Information:- F E INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36100PB2003PTC026482

Company & Directors' Information:- N K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L91110GJ1987PLC009905

Company & Directors' Information:- K L R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28939TG2002PLC038416

Company & Directors' Information:- T S I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101HR1997PTC034478

Company & Directors' Information:- E 2 E SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2000PTC107313

Company & Directors' Information:- B L A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U10200MH1964PTC162314

Company & Directors' Information:- E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007TN1999PTC043325

Company & Directors' Information:- R B T INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24118UP1990PLC011820

Company & Directors' Information:- H G I INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40200WB1944PLC011754

Company & Directors' Information:- R P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100GJ2011PTC075812

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1974PLC007169

Company & Directors' Information:- A G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27300HR1991PTC031378

Company & Directors' Information:- B S B K ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74210DL1985PTC021596

Company & Directors' Information:- H. J. INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2010PTC060769

Company & Directors' Information:- U F M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L15311AS1986PLC002539

Company & Directors' Information:- D S R SOLUTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1999PLC032008

Company & Directors' Information:- G R S INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000PB2005PLC029159

Company & Directors' Information:- T S L INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65999WB1994PLC065255

Company & Directors' Information:- M F B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31401TN1989PLC018274

Company & Directors' Information:- A C M E INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Dormant under section 455] CIN = U19119DL1992PLC048914

Company & Directors' Information:- V S P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2005PTC011820

Company & Directors' Information:- M N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100TG2012PTC079737

Company & Directors' Information:- G I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312PB2010PTC033806

Company & Directors' Information:- E T C INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31200MP1995PLC009281

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045572

Company & Directors' Information:- E A P INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U25206WB1956PLC023072

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V E INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ2006PLC012577

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC257168

Company & Directors' Information:- Z H INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2014PTC265453

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21010MH1992PLC068885

Company & Directors' Information:- N G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1994PLC065937

Company & Directors' Information:- S L INDUSTRIES P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U15331WB1989PTC047543

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51909AS1985PLC002332

Company & Directors' Information:- M M ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02919TZ1987PTC001936

Company & Directors' Information:- T R A T INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199KL1996PLC010148

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC067120

Company & Directors' Information:- H. V. R. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100DL2010PTC200428

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175664

Company & Directors' Information:- N R C INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1985PLC006558

Company & Directors' Information:- S N L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17115RJ1994PTC008053

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057081

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27101HR1995PTC032569

Company & Directors' Information:- D V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049221

Company & Directors' Information:- G V G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1980PTC006887

Company & Directors' Information:- C D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1996PLC101277

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2014PTC096387

Company & Directors' Information:- G S M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02001DL2002PTC117443

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U26921ML1980PLC001830

Company & Directors' Information:- P K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900DL2012PTC241654

Company & Directors' Information:- N L ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109PB1997PTC020362

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U91110GJ1994PTC022025

Company & Directors' Information:- L C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122UP2013PTC055697

Company & Directors' Information:- R M G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18100TG1993PTC016220

Company & Directors' Information:- V A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2006PTC049266

Company & Directors' Information:- D P SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22221DL2000PTC107837

Company & Directors' Information:- G. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15435MH2005PTC151817

Company & Directors' Information:- I W D W INDUSTRIES LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U30099WB1990PLC050177

Company & Directors' Information:- P A S INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active in Progress] CIN = U17121TZ2005PTC012171

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND T ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51103TZ2009PTC015456

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039251

Company & Directors' Information:- N Q SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909OR2009PTC011136

Company & Directors' Information:- M K J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19111UP1989PTC010468

Company & Directors' Information:- S S F INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190BR1988PLC003160

Company & Directors' Information:- P B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MP1994PTC008840

Company & Directors' Information:- V A ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29299MH1997PTC215888

Company & Directors' Information:- R & M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24297TN1972PTC006185

Company & Directors' Information:- VIRGO INDUSTRIES (ENGINEERS) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28991TN1977PTC007272

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U21012WB1977PLC030854

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17117DL1995PTC064137

Company & Directors' Information:- M C INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U27106WB1993PLC058995

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100WB2011PTC160058

Company & Directors' Information:- I & B ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309WB2008PTC124644

Company & Directors' Information:- AT AND T ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203DL2012PTC239940

Company & Directors' Information:- R. L. F. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1983PLC015262

Company & Directors' Information:- C C ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U30009PN1991PTC063868

Company & Directors' Information:- U K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24241WB1988PTC044355

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND T ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC036107

Company & Directors' Information:- M G I INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310GJ2006PTC048707

Company & Directors' Information:- A D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC131561

Company & Directors' Information:- V J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253KA2009PTC050226

Company & Directors' Information:- J G ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45402WB1970PTC027713

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PLC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PTC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- G R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB1996PTC018671

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15549WB2008PTC130116

Company & Directors' Information:- R S V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399MH2008PTC180489

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14220JH2008PTC013409

Company & Directors' Information:- P E ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210TG1981PTC003247

Company & Directors' Information:- M S ENGINEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2006PTC159314

Company & Directors' Information:- D K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202CH1994PLC014627

Company & Directors' Information:- C K ENGINEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200CH1997PTC020744

Company & Directors' Information:- R K S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U20211WB1997PTC086009

Company & Directors' Information:- D G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U36942WB1946PTC013526

Company & Directors' Information:- REDDY INDUSTRIES (INDIA ) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24246MH2002PTC135570

Company & Directors' Information:- R I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1993PTC052678

Company & Directors' Information:- I S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29100GJ2009PTC057308

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17000MH1997PTC109621

Company & Directors' Information:- H M B INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24297GJ1996PTC070418

Company & Directors' Information:- A G B INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21012TZ2008PTC014753

Company & Directors' Information:- K B R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107DL1996PTC079915

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1995PTC006398

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120AS1994PTC004273

Company & Directors' Information:- U N F ENGINEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31102AS2003PTC007198

Company & Directors' Information:- A V ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29306CH2002PTC024874

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2004PTC145040

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01549TZ1997PTC007927

Company & Directors' Information:- K K S K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201TZ1997PTC007687

Company & Directors' Information:- C R I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29120TZ2002PTC010129

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND K ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U29259GJ1982PTC005625

Company & Directors' Information:- A C T INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018724

Company & Directors' Information:- G B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29220PN2011PTC139883

Company & Directors' Information:- S D B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MP1996PLC010394

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31300CT2008PTC020916

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29299WB2006PTC109474

Company & Directors' Information:- K M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC043295

Company & Directors' Information:- C J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25209MH1998PTC116707

Company & Directors' Information:- N P INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15549PB1989PLC009426

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29141MP2008PTC020731

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100MH2010PTC199474

Company & Directors' Information:- H. D. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310MH2011PTC216080

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. G. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26960DL2008PTC182480

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28999DL2008PTC177248

Company & Directors' Information:- H & H INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34100DL2010PTC204604

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15203KA2011PTC060675

Company & Directors' Information:- B R V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301UP1995PTC018704

Company & Directors' Information:- I. S. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007TG1997PTC028047

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25201UP1994PLC017291

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15204AS1993PLC003930

Company & Directors' Information:- I P M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25200DL1995PLC068554

Company & Directors' Information:- M R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036443

Company & Directors' Information:- R D I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1995PTC065508

Company & Directors' Information:- J G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L15141WB1983PLC035931

Company & Directors' Information:- T & I ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29252AS2000PTC006243

Company & Directors' Information:- H B ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910GJ1995PTC027208

Company & Directors' Information:- L T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2000PTC033248

Company & Directors' Information:- V G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15139JK2015PTC004570

Company & Directors' Information:- B. K. ENGINEERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2011PTC214002

Company & Directors' Information:- S N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29211UP1951PTC002319

Company & Directors' Information:- A S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC202208

Company & Directors' Information:- K C K ENGINEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299DL1993PTC056432

Company & Directors' Information:- K G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29130WB1951PTC019868

Company & Directors' Information:- N S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74120UP2012PTC053986

Company & Directors' Information:- W W I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300MH1997PTC112589

Company & Directors' Information:- I I S C ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1986PTC013124

Company & Directors' Information:- I S P SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2001PTC009755

Company & Directors' Information:- K A ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2003PTC119859

Company & Directors' Information:- K L R ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210TG1996PTC024040

Company & Directors' Information:- S P E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300DL2006PTC155569

Company & Directors' Information:- D U INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29230GJ2016PTC091588

Company & Directors' Information:- J B C ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U31300DL2004PTC125469

Company & Directors' Information:- T R ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29111DL2004PTC126852

Company & Directors' Information:- B V R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28999CT2020PTC010570

Company & Directors' Information:- S R P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U00061BR1984PLC002023

Company & Directors' Information:- D C ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210MH1999PTC118382

Company & Directors' Information:- E C ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U28920MH1981PTC024675

Company & Directors' Information:- B J & P ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910TN2008PTC067728

Company & Directors' Information:- K B ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27202WB1987PTC041979

Company & Directors' Information:- T X G SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U72200DL2006PTC150671

Company & Directors' Information:- N. C. R. ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2008PTC034625

Company & Directors' Information:- C P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29303MP1949PTC000846

Company & Directors' Information:- V K G ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202PB2006PTC030194

Company & Directors' Information:- J B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC245506

Company & Directors' Information:- S J V INDUSTRIES LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U15421WB1982PLC035521

Company & Directors' Information:- V V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1980PTC010427

Company & Directors' Information:- K K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65100DL1982PTC013046

Company & Directors' Information:- A T C INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109AS1984PLC002201

Company & Directors' Information:- N V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1953PTC020952

Company & Directors' Information:- H D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2009PTC194392

Company & Directors' Information:- J C ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29248HR1988PTC030208

Company & Directors' Information:- H & K SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040GJ2009PTC059027

Company & Directors' Information:- F A S T SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22100MH1989PTC052935

Company & Directors' Information:- K C ENGINEERS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999HR2005PLC035602

Company & Directors' Information:- K C ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999HR2005PTC035602

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31908AS1987PTC002804

Company & Directors' Information:- C & L ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U29190DL1998PTC096952

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND M ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74210MH1986PTC041517

Company & Directors' Information:- N AND S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210KA1999PTC025555

Company & Directors' Information:- REDDY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232DL2012PLC236860

Company & Directors' Information:- U-TO SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100MH2000PTC130052

Company & Directors' Information:- Z D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2007PTC062584

Company & Directors' Information:- H V ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202PB1978PTC003839

Company & Directors' Information:- L K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291MH2012PTC233546

Company & Directors' Information:- O AND M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210OR2005PTC008166

Company & Directors' Information:- R P A S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2008PTC057538

Company & Directors' Information:- I T ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC136156

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U92114DL1956PTC002616

Company & Directors' Information:- E B P ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392DL2003PTC118311

Company & Directors' Information:- L S ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MH2000PTC129659

Company & Directors' Information:- H V ENGINEERS P LTD. [Active] CIN = U27106WB1990PTC050281

Company & Directors' Information:- S M R ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29199TZ2000PTC009464

Company & Directors' Information:- S P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U72200DL2011PTC213318

Company & Directors' Information:- G G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320UP1969PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- V V S ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U27310AP1985PTC005668

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. G. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1996PTC023719

Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- V B ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25209MH2009PTC191163

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31909MH1960PTC011707

Company & Directors' Information:- D V ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061013

Company & Directors' Information:- I T SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL1996PTC076426

Company & Directors' Information:- F L B ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28932MH1985PTC035994

Company & Directors' Information:- S B R ENGINEER'S PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202WB2000PTC092506

Company & Directors' Information:- N G C M (INDUSTRIES) LTD [Dissolved] CIN = U19209WB1979PLC032019

Company & Directors' Information:- MAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999KA2016PTC093783

Company & Directors' Information:- K B SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140PB2011PTC035055

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. W. ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120PN2010PTC136515

Company & Directors' Information:- P R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21014DL1971PTC005738

Company & Directors' Information:- R K I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29190DL2012PTC233413

Company & Directors' Information:- H A SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC104116

Company & Directors' Information:- V. J. L. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2018PTC109127

Company & Directors' Information:- 1 TO 5 SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74999AS2020PTC020427

Company & Directors' Information:- M S V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309TN2020PTC138957

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25202AS1988PTC003132

Company & Directors' Information:- H M S ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29219CH1991PTC011585

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND C SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000PY1995PLC001144

Company & Directors' Information:- S S INDUSTRIES ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28120MH1988PTC048093

Company & Directors' Information:- J L ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28920MH2000PTC124206

Company & Directors' Information:- P M C ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210KL1981PTC003354

Company & Directors' Information:- S G R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25199WB1948PTC016397

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80302CH2001PLC024420

Company & Directors' Information:- J J V ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200HR2013PTC048964

Company & Directors' Information:- D V M SOLUTIONS LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74140DL1999PLC102362

Company & Directors' Information:- B M K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17100MH1948PTC006398

Company & Directors' Information:- P T R ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U31901TN1979PTC007806

Company & Directors' Information:- S L V ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72501TZ2000PTC009366

Company & Directors' Information:- C. B. S. ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120UP2011PTC045651

Company & Directors' Information:- T S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200UP2000PTC025406

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

Company & Directors' Information:- M R K ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21014KA1995PTC018466

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190KA2012PTC062367

Company & Directors' Information:- VIRGO INDIA PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010147

Company & Directors' Information:- P C ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300CH1985PTC006093

Company & Directors' Information:- R R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309BR2008PTC013387

Company & Directors' Information:- R H ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74200CH1984PTC005944

Company & Directors' Information:- B A SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2006PTC155492

Company & Directors' Information:- G S ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210PB1994PTC014225

Company & Directors' Information:- VIRGO ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191TN1988PTC005925

Company & Directors' Information:- H I ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210WB1984PTC037097

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19115UP2012PTC051151

Company & Directors' Information:- E S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN2012PTC086119

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INDUSTRIES LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28992WB1990PLC050469

Company & Directors' Information:- S A ENGINEERS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28932WB1977PLC031202

Company & Directors' Information:- ENGINEERS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29100WB1933PLC007579

Company & Directors' Information:- V I INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36934WB1951PLC019890

Company & Directors' Information:- G B ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1982PTC034958

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29199TZ1990PTC002690

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U21011UP1988PTC010091

Company & Directors' Information:- J M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05002UP1952PTC002456

Company & Directors' Information:- A R ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45203OR1993PTC003413

Company & Directors' Information:- M. Y. ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28920MH1999PTC119174

Company & Directors' Information:- C A AND S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200AP2000PTC034546

Company & Directors' Information:- P & A ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101OR2011PTC014428

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND D (ENGINEERS) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28932MH1975PTC018333

Company & Directors' Information:- R A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC249132

Company & Directors' Information:- L F INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291UP2015PTC068602

Company & Directors' Information:- I SOLUTIONS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2004PTC052692

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27201WB1946PTC013433

Company & Directors' Information:- A G ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC024138

Company & Directors' Information:- R V I T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC137434

Company & Directors' Information:- Y A ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC110304

Company & Directors' Information:- R. F. ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32100DL2010PTC199732

Company & Directors' Information:- V M V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26990GJ2013PTC076945

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U29248PN1948PLC001948

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z ENGINEERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299DL1988PTC030239

Company & Directors' Information:- K J S ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL1998PTC093851

Company & Directors' Information:- A P ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29269UP1991PTC013866

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20232AS1980PTC001853

Company & Directors' Information:- S S ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28931TN1987PTC015093

Company & Directors' Information:- A S ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TG1988PTC008455

Company & Directors' Information:- N R S ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29269UP1992PTC014881

Company & Directors' Information:- V N R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21090AP2012PTC081525

Company & Directors' Information:- R I SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392WB1999PTC088640

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24231UP1988PTC009258

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011764

Company & Directors' Information:- A. B. T. ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28111OR1993PTC003388

Company & Directors' Information:- H J ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC027668

Company & Directors' Information:- S G SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999BR2008PTC013392

Company & Directors' Information:- V N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2009PTC195421

Company & Directors' Information:- A R ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U71220UP1978PTC004701

Company & Directors' Information:- K K ENGINEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200CH1984PTC005826

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2007PTC161367

Company & Directors' Information:- S R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200HR2000PTC055629

Company & Directors' Information:- B E SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2005PTC037127

Company & Directors' Information:- D H ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1963PTC025758

Company & Directors' Information:- G F M ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202WB1969PTC027476

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- R B ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24230MH2003PTC141901

Company & Directors' Information:- G I P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52605MH2015PTC263962

Company & Directors' Information:- G N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993PN2008PTC132031

Company & Directors' Information:- C. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109RJ2014PTC045306

Company & Directors' Information:- J .S .SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PB2007PTC030855

Company & Directors' Information:- F S ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210TN1973PTC006482

Company & Directors' Information:- U. K. ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900PN2008PTC132332

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2014PTC254820

Company & Directors' Information:- SOLUTIONS @ PANORAMA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040MH2010PTC199347

Company & Directors' Information:- J B ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900MH2012PTC226187

Company & Directors' Information:- S. B. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC144181

Company & Directors' Information:- A.N.D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC244625

Company & Directors' Information:- S & E ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2010PTC135666

Company & Directors' Information:- V & M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2014PTC150848

Company & Directors' Information:- G K SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2004PTC149891

Company & Directors' Information:- G K A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2004PTC150210

Company & Directors' Information:- H. R. SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120TG2012PTC081581

Company & Directors' Information:- VENTURETECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29100TG2012PTC078896

Company & Directors' Information:- A & P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36935TG2014PTC095781

Company & Directors' Information:- C & N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40200TG2014PTC095187

Company & Directors' Information:- B S B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2013PTC088059

Company & Directors' Information:- R A R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2016PTC103684

Company & Directors' Information:- D B S ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210UP2010PTC084195

Company & Directors' Information:- S A E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2012PTC181964

Company & Directors' Information:- K S A B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2012PTC181903

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36100JK2013PTC003808

Company & Directors' Information:- O S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000JK2012PTC003733

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100CH2015PTC035482

Company & Directors' Information:- A T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2009PTC031621

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392CH2010PTC032232

Company & Directors' Information:- G H ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28939DL2004PTC130703

Company & Directors' Information:- N R ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29292DL2011PTC221986

Company & Directors' Information:- R D M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100DL2013PTC252294

Company & Directors' Information:- G S L SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC164747

Company & Directors' Information:- F K SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC186101

Company & Directors' Information:- K M ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC272465

Company & Directors' Information:- B. R. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2002PTC116699

Company & Directors' Information:- G. M. S E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC235662

Company & Directors' Information:- A N S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC245060

Company & Directors' Information:- S & T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2013PTC247089

Company & Directors' Information:- M A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2014PTC265618

Company & Directors' Information:- S A N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2002PTC117534

Company & Directors' Information:- I G SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2012PTC244223

Company & Directors' Information:- P G I T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC139469

Company & Directors' Information:- H R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC073143

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 Z SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109658

Company & Directors' Information:- A P D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2013PTC249969

Company & Directors' Information:- V R A A P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74950DL2014PTC271337

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- V SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA2010PTC052832

Company & Directors' Information:- N R L SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KA2013PTC069148

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100KA2012PTC066761

Company & Directors' Information:- S V SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ2007PTC051390

Company & Directors' Information:- V. A. R. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18209DL2020PTC369202

Company & Directors' Information:- U K J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21094DL2020PTC370720

Company & Directors' Information:- N K ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921UP1954PTC002533

Company & Directors' Information:- S V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27104WB1960PTC024715

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

Company & Directors' Information:- H. R. ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PB1973PTC003316

Company & Directors' Information:- ENGINEERS CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74300WB1946PTC022035

Company & Directors' Information:- I S C ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1983PTC017046

Company & Directors' Information:- G P B ENGINEERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29212RJ1990PTC005595

Company & Directors' Information:- B P K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1960PTC011841

Company & Directors' Information:- T & M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1956PLC002904

Company & Directors' Information:- D S REDDY & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51102TN1952PTC000600

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200PN2008PTC131887

Company & Directors' Information:- T N B SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2007GAT171606

Company & Directors' Information:- H F SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC168577

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC180136

Company & Directors' Information:- THE ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1948PTC000551

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900GJ2007PTC051103

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51109BR1946PTC000228

Company & Directors' Information:- M A INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15412WB1950PTC019030

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U60200BR1946PTC000035

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1946PTC005438

Company & Directors' Information:- B M K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U99999MH1948PTC006393

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U99999MH1948PTC006932

Company & Directors' Information:- M. AND S. (ENGINEERS) LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1952PLC008956

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15142PN1948PTC006932

Company & Directors' Information:- V B C INDUSTRIES LTD. [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999AP2000PTC910431

    Original Side Appeal Nos. 24, 105, 106, 140, 141 & 143 of 2019 & Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1564, 9727, 12267, 12268 & 12278 of 2019

    Decided On, 19 June 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. KRISHNAVALLI

    For the Appellants: Ravi Paul, Senior Advocate, Muktha, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate, K. Harishankar, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: OSA No. 24 of 2019:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Application No. 608 of 2013 in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 on the file of this Court.

OSA No. 105 of 2019:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Application No. 617 of 2013 in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 on the file of this Court.

OSA No. 106 of 2019:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Application No. 222 of 2006 in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 on the file of this Court.

OSA No. 140 of 2019:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Application No. 242 of 2006 in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 on the file of this Court.

OSA No. 141 of 2019:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Application No. 607 of 2013 in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 on the file of this Court.

OSA No. 143 of 2019:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Application No. 618 of 2013 in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 on the file of this Court.)

Common Judgment: R. Subbiah, J.

All these six Original Side Appeals arise out of a common order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in various applications filed during the pendency of two suits, namely C.S. No. 831 and 833 of 2005. Both the suits were filed by the respondent in these appeals, viz., M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Chennai.

2. The respondent has filed the suit in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 against the appellant in OSA No. 105, 106 and 143 of 2019 viz., Conveyors India Fabrications Private Limited praying to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from in any manner alienating or encumbering the plaint described property to third party other than the plaintiff. The property described in the plaint schedule is the land and superstructure bearing Plot No.66, Old No.42, Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai measuring 2992 square feet in Survey No.220 part in Mannur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

3. The other suit in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant in OSA Nos. 24, 140 and 141 namely M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from alienating or encumbering the property described in the schedule of the plaint to third parties other than the plaintiff. The property described in the schedule of the plaint in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 is the land and superstructure bearing Plot No.65, Old No.43, Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai measuring 39375 square feet in Mannur/Mogappair Village, Thiruvallur District.

4. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the cause of action for both the suits arose out of two agreements of sale, both dated 27.07.2005. The agreements were entered into between the respondent herein with the respective appellant, whereby the appellants, who are the owners of the land covered under the agreements dated 27.07.2005, agreed to sell the same to the respondent/plaintiff. The properties covered under the agreements dated 27.07.2005 are adjacent properties. In other words, the properties covered under the agreements dated 27.07.2005 are contiguous and they are situated in Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai.

5. As per the averments in the plaint in C.S. No. 831 of 2005, the appellant and the respondent entered into the agreement dated 27.07.2005, by which the appellant agreed to sell the properties mentioned above to the respondent herein. The recitals in the agreement dated 27.07.2005 would indicate that the total sale consideration agreed between the parties to the suit in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 was Rs.25 lakhs. On the date of agreement, the respondent/plaintiff paid Rs.5 lakhs as sale advance. The agreement also makes it incumbent on the part of the respondent/plaintiff to pay another sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 26.08.2005 and the balance sum of Rs.15 lakhs at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The agreement stipulates that the contract has to be concluded within a period of six months. There was a specific recital in the agreement dated 27.07.2005 to the effect that the transaction is subject to the approval of title by the advocate of the respondent/plaintiff.

6. In the other suit in C.S. No. 833 of 2005, the respondent/plaintiff contended that the total sale consideration fixed was Rs.3,55,00,000/-, out of which the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.45 lakhs on the date of agreement. As per the covenants contained in the agreement dated 27.07.2005, the respondent /plaintiff in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 is required to pay another sum of Rs.45 lakhs on or before 26.08.2005 and the balance sum of Rs.2,65,00,000/- is payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. Here again, the time for performance of the sale transaction is fixed as six months subject to approval of title by the plaintiff's advocate.

7. In the plaint in C.S. No. 831 and 833 of 2005, it was contended, in unison, that after paying the advance sale consideration, the respondent/ plaintiff was eagerly waiting to hear from the appellants/defendants for the purpose of paying the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed in their favour in respect of the properties covered in the agreements dated 27.07.2005. However, suddenly out of the blue, the appellants/defendants, by letter dated 01.08.2005, informed that the Central Excise Department was contemplating issuing a notice restraining the alienation of the properties covered under the agreements dated 27.07.2005 and therefore, the appellants/ defendants expressed their inability to proceed with the sale transaction and also returned the advance sale amount paid by the respondent/plaintiff by means of a cheque. According to the respondent/plaintiff, they were in receipt of the letter dated 01.08.2005 only on 18.08.2005 and immediately, on 20.08.2005, a reply was sent calling upon the appellants/defendants to provide sufficient proof that the Central Excise Department is restraining them from causing alienation of the property. In the meantime, by a letter dated 10.08.2005, the respondent/Plaintiff were also in receipt of xerox copies of document of title from the appellants/defendants and they were also acknowledged by the respondent/plaintiff on the same day by a letter dated 10.08.2005. However, as there was no response to the letter dated 20.08.2005, on 25.08.2005, the respondent/plaintiff had once again written a letter to the appellants/defendants, reiterating their readiness and willingness to purchase the properties covered under the agreements dated 27.07.2005 by paying the balance sale consideration. Along with the letter dated 25.08.2005, the respondent/plaintiff also sent a cheque representing the amount payable by them as per the agreement, as second instalment, besides returning the cheque sent by the appellants/defendants representing the advance amount paid by the respondent/plaintiff. On the other hand, the appellants/defendants sent a letter dated 25.08.2005 enclosing an encumbrance certificate dated 01.10.2004 which discloses subsisting encumbrances in the property covered under the agreements dated 27.07.2005 with an entry indicated as “Government of India”. According to the appellants/defendants, the entry in the encumbrance certificate pertains to an attachment already made by the Central Excise Department. But, according to the respondent/plaintiff, at the time of execution of the sale agreements dated 27.07.2005, an encumbrance certificate was produced by the appellants/defendants, which do not contain any such entry and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff seriously doubt as to the genuineness of the encumbrance certificate furnished by the appellants/ defendants along with their letter dated 25.08.2005. Further, even if there is any such encumbrance, the liability of the appellants/defendants to the Department of Central Excise is only Rs.2.16 crore which is less than the amount agreed to be paid by them under the agreements of sale and therefore, the liability to the Department can very well be cleared on completion of the sale transaction. Thus, it was contended by the respondent/plaintiff that for obvious reasons, the appellants/defendants are attempting to frustrate the sale transaction without any bonafides. In such circumstances, the respondent/ plaintiff had instituted the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 before this Court on 28.08.2005 for a bare injunction against the appellants from alienating or encumbering the properties described in the respective plaint to any third party other than the plaintiff.

8. Along with the said suits, the respondent/plaintiff had taken out Application Nos. 4259 and 4260 of 2005 in C.S. No. 831 and 833 of 2005 respectively under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) stating that they can claim the relief of specific performance only after six months from the date of execution of agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff is having time to make such a claim for specific performance of the agreements after the expiry of six months period from the date of agreements of sale. Moreover, the respondent/plaintiff is only interested in purchasing the plaint described property. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff has not included the prayer for specific performance of the agreements and also not claiming damages and therefore, prayed for omitting the relief of specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005 and the relief of damages for breach of contract, against the appellants/defendants with liberty to sue them on the same cause of action at a later point of time, pending disposal of the suits.

9. The respondent/plaintiff also filed another application in O.A. No. 923 of 2005 in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 in which this Court has granted an interim injunction on 21.09.2005 restraining the appellants/defendants from alienating or encumbering the properties described in the schedule of the plaint, pending disposal of the suit.

10. On notice, the appellants/defendants herein have filed Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006 in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 respectively under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC praying to reject the plaints on the ground that the properties described in the schedule of the respective plaints situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. It was also stated that the advance amount received from the respondent/plaintiff was already returned and the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005 was rescinded by the letter dated 01.08.2005. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff can only seek for the relief of declaration and specific performance of the agreements dated 27.07.2005 and the suit for mere bare injunction is not maintainable. It was also contended that the respondent/plaintiff ought to have obtained leave under Order II Rule 3 of the CPC, but without obtaining such leave, the present suits have been filed and it is nothing short of an abuse of process of law.

11. Opposing the applications for rejecting the plaints, the respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit stating that though the plaint described property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court, it has got nothing to do with the nature of relief sought for in the suit. According to the respondent/ plaintiff, the cause of action for the suits arose within the jurisdiction of this Court where the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005 were entered into between the parties. Further, a plaint can be rejected only if the grounds mentioned under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are made out. Hence, it was contended by the respondent/plaintiff that the applications filed by the appellants/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaints are liable to be dismissed.

12. By an order dated 08.02.2006, this Court dismissed Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2005 for rejecting the plaint by holding that though the properties described in the plaint are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court, part of cause of action had taken place in the city of Madras and therefore, leave was granted by this Court. With respect to recession of contract, this Court held that it can be decided only during trial and as such, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2006 passed in Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006 in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, O.S.A. Nos.135 and 136 of 2006 were filed before the Division Bench of this Court.

13. During the pendency of O.S.A.Nos.135 and 136 of 2006 before the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent/plaintiff has filed two independent suits in O.S. No. 202 and 203 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur for specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005.

14. On receipt of summons in O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007, the appellant has filed CRP Nos. 3758 and 3759 of 2007 under Article 227 of The Constitution of India before this Court to strike off the plaints on the ground that without obtaining leave of this Court in C.S. Nos.831 and 833 of 2005, the suits filed in O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur are barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. This Court, by order dated 06.10.2009 dismissed CRP Nos. 3758 and 3759 of 2007 holding that Order II Rule 2 of CPC can be pressed into service only when the earlier suit was disposed of. When the suit filed before this Court in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 are pending, the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC does not get attracted. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.2009 passed in CRP Nos.3758 and 3759 of 2007, Civil Appeal No. 6372 of 2012 in Special Leave Petition (Civil).No.1184 of 2010 were filed before the Honourable Supreme Court and they were allowed on 07.09.2012 by setting aside the order dated 06.10.2019 passed in CRP.(PD).Nos. 3758 and 3759 of 2007 and consequently, the plaint in O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur filed by the respondent/plaintiff were struck off by holding that Order II Rule 2 of CPC can be made applicable even when an earlier suit was filed and pending before the Court.

15. In the meantime, O.S.A. No. 135 and 136 of 2006 filed against the order of dismissal dated 08.02.2006 passed in Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2005 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaints in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.03.2011 remitting the matter back to the learned single Judge, with a direction to deal with Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2005 afresh in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in Thamaraparani Investment Private Limited vs. Meta Films Private Limited reported in 2006 (1) CTC 270.

16. At this stage, the respondent/plaintiff has filed Application Nos.607 and 617 of 2013 in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 respectively seeking amendment of the plaints in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance. The respondent/plaintiff has also filed application Nos. 608 and 618 of 2013 in the said suits to exclude the period during which O.S. No. 202 and 203 of 2007 were pending before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur from 29.05.2007 till 07.09.2012, the date on which the plaints were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for the purpose of filing the applications for amendment.

17. The applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint to include the relief of specific performance as well as for excluding the period spent in prosecuting the suit in O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007, were opposed by the appellants/defendants by filing a counter. According to the appellants, the Civil Appeal Nos. 6372 and 6373 of 2012 filed before the Honourable Supreme Court were allowed striking off the plaint in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, which were filed for specific performance before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur and therefore, the applications for amendment to include the relief of specific performance in C.S. No. 831 and 833 of 2005, if allowed, will amount to contravening the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, the appellants/defendants prayed for dismissing the application for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint as well as the application to exclude the period for the purpose of limitation, as devoid of merits.

18. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 23.12.2016 allowed the applications for amendment and permitted the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaints in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance. By the same order, the learned single Judge has also allowed the applications to exclude the period spent in prosecuting O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. As regards the application No. 4259 and 4260 of 2005 seeking leave to omit the relief of specific performance and damages is concerned, in view of the order passed in Application Nos.607 and 617 of 2013 permitting amendment of the plaints, Application Nos.4259 and 4260 of 2005 were closed as having become infructuous. Similarly, the application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006 filed by the appellants/defendants for rejecting the plaints were also closed by the learned single Judge as the relief sought for therein has become infructuous. It is this order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned single Judge which is assailed in these appeals.

19. Mr.Ravi Paul, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset, focused his submissions with respect to OSA Nos. 105 and 141 of 2009 arising out of Application Nos.607 and 617 of 2013 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint in C.S. Nos.831 and 833 of 2005. He would submit that the learned single Judge ought not to have permitted the respondent/plaintiff to amend the prayer in the suits to include the relief of specific performance when it is clearly barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. As per Order II Rule 2 (2) of CPC, it is mandatory for the plaintiff, who institute a suit, to include the whole of the claim which he is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. In this case, the cause of action for the respondent/plaintiff to seek the relief of specific performance was very much available at the time of institution of the suits in C.S. Nos.831 and 833 of 2005, however, for the reasons best known, the respondent/plaintiff has only filed the suits for bare injunction. During the pendency of C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 filed before this Court, the respondent/plaintiff has filed separate suits in O.S. No. 202 and 203 of 2007 before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur for specific performance which were subsequently struck of by the Honourable Supreme Court at the instance of the appellants/defendants herein. After striking of the plaint in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 by the Honourable Supreme Court, the respondent/plaintiff had taken out the application for amendment to include the relief of specific performance. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the cause of action for filing the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 before this Court and the cause of action for filing the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 are one and the same. Knowing fully well that the suits for specific performance with possession as prayed for in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur are suits for land, in order to bring the same within the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff has intentionally relinquished the relief of specific performance and possession at the time of filing the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. Therefore, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is barred under Order II Rule 2 (2) of CPC. While so, the learned single Judge ought not to have permitted amendment of the suits in C.S. No. 831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance. In this context, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants/defendants placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Registered) vs. Ramesh Chander and others reported in (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 596. Useful reference can be made to the observations in that judgment in para No.30, which reads as follows:-

“30. This Court, is therefore, of the opinion that the appellant had the cause of action to sue for specific performance in 1991 but he omitted to do so. Having done that, he should not be allowed to sue on that cause of action which he omitted to include when he filed his suit. This Court may consider its omission to include the relief of the specific performance in the suit which it filed when it had cause of action to sue for specific performance as relinquishment of that part of its claim. The suit filed by the appellant, therefore, is hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code."

20. For the same proposition, reference was made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. Zalak Singh and others, reported in AIR 2019 SC 2465, wherein, in Para Nos. 40 and 43, it was held as follows:-

“40. We are of the view that in such circumstances, this is a case where the plaintiff ought to have included relief in the form of setting aside the second sale deed also. This is not a case where the second sale deed had not been executed when the plaintiff instituted the first suit. We are not, for a moment, declaring the effect of the sale deed having been executed subsequently to the institution of the suit as we do not have to pronounce on the effect of such a sale. We are only emphasizing that it was open to the respondent/plaintiff to seek relief in respect of the second sale executed by their predecessor-in-interest and what is more important in favour of the same parties (defendants) who are appellants before us.

41.......

42.......

43. That on the same cause of action, the plaintiffs having omitted to sue in respect of the sale deed in question, we would think that bar under Order II Rule 2 would apply. In this view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to pronounce on the question relating to constructive res judicata. In the light of this, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. Parties to bear their respective costs.”

21. By quoting the above passage from the aforesaid two decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants/ defendants would contend that in the instant case, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the appellants/defendants to strike off the plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur on the reasoning that Order II Rule 2 of CPC can be made applicable only if the earlier suit is disposed of and thereafter a fresh suit is filed on the same cause of action. In the instant case, when the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, the earlier suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 were pending before this Court and hence the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC is not attracted. But in the appeal filed before the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6372 and 6373 of 2012, against the order passed in Civil Revision Petitions, it has been categorically held that that it is immaterial as to whether the first suit was either disposed of or pending, it will attract the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court struck off the plaints in the subsequent suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. While so, it is no longer open to the respondent/plaintiff to seek for amendment of the pleadings in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. However, the learned single Judge placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rathnavathi and another vs. Kavita Ganashamdas (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 223 has permitted amendment of the pleadings. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants, the ratio laid down in Rathnavathi case cannot be made applicable to the case on hand, inasmuch as the Honourable Supreme Court, in that case, held that the cause of action for the suits are different and consequently, the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC is not attracted. The learned Single Judge, without taking note of such observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rathnavathi's case, has permitted the respondent/plaintiff to carry out amendment in the suits to include the prayer for specific performance. The finding of the learned single Judge that since he is exercising equitable jurisdiction of the Court, it impelled him to conclude that the matter require further examination and that no harm would be caused to the defendants if they were directed to confront a full-fledged trial, cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge failed to consider the legal bar enunciated under Order II Rule 2 of CPC while allowing amendment to the suits in C.S. Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance of the agreements.

22. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants submitted that the application for amendment of the plaint to include the prayer for specific performance is barred under Section 11 of CPC, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6372 and 6373 of 2012, striking off the plaint in O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 filed by the respondent/plaintiff as against the appellants/defendants. In the said Civil Appeals, the issue of applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC had been heard and finally decided. Therefore, the issue between the parties with regard to the claim of specific performance had reached finality. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1960 SC 941 (Sathyadhan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Debi), wherein it was held that the principle of res-judicata will apply even in respect of two stages in the same litigation also. Useful reference can be made to the observations made in Para Nos.7 and 8 by the Honourable Supreme Court and they are as follows:-

“7. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a respondent is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter – whether on a question of fact or a question of law – has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in S.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure but even where S.11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by Courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original court as well as any higher court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct.

8. The principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Does this however mean that because at an earlier stage of the litigation, a court has decided an interloctuary matter in one way and no appeal has been taken therefrom or no appeal did lie, a higher court cannot at a latter stage of the same litigation consider the matter again.”

23. By placing reliance on the above decision, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the submission of the respondent/plaintiff that the principle of res judicata will apply only to the earlier suits and not to the amendments made in the former suit, cannot be sustained.

24. Turning to the appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 143 and 24 of 2019 pertaining to the applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff for excluding the time spent in instituting the suit in O.S. No. 202 and 203 of 2007 till the disposal of the Civil Appeal Nos. 6372 and 6373 of 2012 by the Honourable Supreme Court of India on 07.09.2012, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that Section 14 of the Limitation Act will not come to the aid of the respondent to maintain such an application. It is his contention that Order VII Rule 6 of CPC provides for exemption of any period for the purpose of computation of limitation, provided, there is a pleading to the effect in the plaint. In this case, the respondent/plaintiff, without seeking any such amendment in the plaint in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, as required under Order VII Rule 6 of CPC, has filed a separate application for exempting the period spent in prosecuting O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, which cannot be countenanced. Moreover, allowing the said application for amendment at this stage, will shut the opportunity of the appellants/defendants to raise the issue of limitation in this case. For the purpose of invoking Article 14 of the Limitation Act, the respondent/plaintiff must satisfy that filing of O.S. No. 202 and 203 of 2007 is with due diligence and in good faith without being aware of the fact that the Court, in which such suits are filed lacks jurisdiction or for some other reason could not entertain such suit. The respondent/plaintiff, having failed to satisfy the above criteria, is not entitled for excluding the period spent in vexatiously prosecuting the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 till they were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012. Here again, the learned single Judge, by placing reliance in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rathnavathi's case has held that the respondent/plaintiff's company would certainly be entitled for exclusion of time spent from 29.05.2007 and 07.09.2012. When the suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court, the period spent in prosecuting the above suits cannot be exempted for the purpose of filing the applications for amendment. In order to buttress this submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Vidhya Varuthi Theertha Swamigal vs. Venkatrama Aiyar reported in 1917 (2) MLJ 682 = CDJ 1917 MHC 117, wherein it was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act will not apply to cases were the suit was prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction. Useful reference can be made to this decision, which reads as follows:-

“1. The question for decision in this appeal is one of limitation in connection with a petition for execution. The decree holder made an application for execution, No. 1571 of 1909 on the 13th September 1909, the object of the application being to get a transfer of the decree from the Tirunevelly Court to the Ambasamudram Munsif's Court. The application was dismissed on two grounds by the District Mutisif – firstly that it was not shown that there was no property of the judgment debtor within the local limits of the Tinnevelley court and secondly that the application was barred by limitation. Then on appeal, the Subordinate Judge reversed that order. But the High Court in second appeal restored the order of the District Munsif. This was on the 13th February 1913. The present application was put in on the 14th October 1913 and limitation is said to be saved by deducting the time between the filing of the application on the 13th September 1909 and of the date of the High Court's order, 13th February 1913. The District Judge who has held in favour of the decree-holder applied Section 14 of the Limitation Act to this case. But it seems to us that that section has no application because it could not be said that the application was proceeded with in a court without jurisdiction, that is to say, that the application was in fructuous because it was proceeded with in a court without jurisdiction or on a similar ground. The Tinnevelley Court has jurisdiction to deal with the application for transfer though it could make the order only if certain facts were proved. It could not be said therefore that the decree holder was pursuing his remedy through a bona fide mistake in the wrong court. Further, the relief that is now sought, that is, attachment of properties in the Tinnevelly Court is not the same relief which was asked for in the application of the 13th September 1909 because all that was asked for in it was transfer of the decree for execution to another Court.”

25. According to the learned Senior counsel for the appellants/ defendants, it was not the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the suits filed in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 was not prosecuted on account of any defect of jurisdiction. In other words, the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 were filed only before a competent court having jurisdiction but they were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court on the ground that these suits are barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied to the present case. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supree Court in the case of Zafar Khan vs. Board of Revenue, UP reported in 1984 Supp SCC 505, wherein it was held as follows:-

“13. In order to attract the application of Section 14 (1), the parties seeking its benefit must satisfy the Court that; (i) that the party as the plaintiff was prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence; (ii) that the earlier proceeding and the later proceeding relate to the same matter in issue, and (iii) the former proceeding was being prosecuted in good faith in a court, which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. It may be assumed that the earlier proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a civil proceeding for the purpose of section 14. It may as well be assumed in favour of the appellants that they were prosecuting the same with due diligence and in good faith, as they relentlessly carried the proceeding upto the High Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. The first of the aforementioned three cumulative conditions can be said to have been satisfied.

14. The appellants must further satisfy the Court that the earlier proceeding i.e., the one under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure related to the same matter in issue, as in the present suit. There the appellants are not on sure ground. In a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party applying for restitution has to satisfy the court of first instance that a decree under which it was made to part with the property is varied or reversed or modified in appeal or revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose and therefore, restitution must be ordered. Section 144 is founded on the equitable principle that one who has taken advantage of a decree of a court should not be permitted to retain it, if the decree is reversed or modified. That is why the marginal note to Section 144 (1) reads 'application for restitution' and the word 'restitution' in its etymological sense means restoring to a party on the modification, variation or reversal of a decree what has been lost to him in execution of the decree or in direct consequence of the decree. In such a proceeding, the party seeking restitution is not required to satisfy the court about its title or right to the property save and except showing its deprivation under a decree and the reversal or variation of the decree. On the reversal by the Board of Revenue in the appeal filed by the appellants of the order of the Additional Commissioner under which the respondents obtained possession, the appellants merely claimed in their application under Section 144 that in view of the reversal of the order by the Board of Revenue the respondents are not entitled to retain possession and that restitution should be ordered because the appellants lost possession under the order of the Additional Commissioner which was reversed by the Board of Revenue. The cause of action was the reversal of the order of the Additional Commissioner. When they failed to obtain restitution, the appellant filed a substantive suit under Sections 209 and 229-B of the 1950 Act in which they claimed that they have become the bhumidhars of the plots in dispute and that the respondents are not entitled to retain possession as their possession is not in accordance with the provisions of 1950 Act. It was a suit on title as bhumidhars for possession against respondents alleging unauthorised retention of possession. It had nothing to do with the order of the Additional Commissioner. In this suit the appellants were bound to prove that the respondents were not entitled to retain possession under any of the provisions of the 1950 Act. Incidentally, the order of the Additional Commissioner and its reversal would figure as evidence but it is difficult to accept that the subsequent proceeding relates to the same matter in issue as was involved in the earlier proceeding. In the application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure only allegation to be proved for relief of restitution is that the decree order under which respondents obtained possession from appellants has been reversed, modified or varied. They need not prove title or right to be in possession. In the suit, not only title to the land as bhumidhar must be proved but also the respondents had not a tittle of title to retain possession. And respondents can allege and prove that under the very 1950 Act under which appellants became bhumidhars, the respondents have become adhivasis entitled to retain possession against the appellants. This defence was not open to them in the proceeding under Section 144. It was, however, submitted that the appellants were seeking, in both the proceedings, possession of the plots involved in the dispute on the ground that they are ultimately entitled to the possession thereof and the possession of the respondents vis-a-vis the appellants was unauthorised and they were not entitled to retain possession against the appellants. This is far from convincing. One can at best say there is a grey area and that as the provision of Section 14 is required to be construed liberally, therefore, we may not have denied the benefit if this was the only aspect against the appellants.

15. The question however is whether the third condition for attracting Section 14 (1) is satisfied. The appellants must further satisfy the Court that the earlier proceeding failed on account of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. Now at no stage it was contended that the authority to whom the application was made for restitution had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, nor through the course of the proceedings upto the High Court any one, anywhere, questioned the jurisdiction of the authority to grant restitution. Therefore, it can be safely said that the previous proceeding did not fail on account of defect of jurisdiction.”

26. By referring to the above decision, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the subsequent suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 is before a proper forum and they did not suffer due to lack of jurisdiction warranting the learned single Judge to exempt the period during which the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 were filed and pending before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. Even otherwise, the respondent/plaintiff failed to obtain leave under Order II Rule 2 (3) of CPC for claiming the relief of specific performance, when it was strenuously objected to by the appellants/defendants during the hearing of CRP.Nos.3758 and 3759 of 2007. In such circumstances, the respondent/plaintiff ought to have obtained leave before instituting the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 which was not properly considered by the learned Single Judge.

27. Assailing the order of the learned single Judge in closing Application Nos. 222 of 2006 and 242 of 2006 for rejecting the plaints, which are the subject matter of the appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 106 and 140 of 2019, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants/defendants would contend that the applications were filed mainly on the ground that the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 are not maintainable before this Court, as the properties described in the plaint are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. In fact, the Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006 filed by the appellants/defendants were dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 08.02.2006 against which the appellants have filed O.S.A. No. 135 and 136 of 2006 before the Division Bench of this Court. By Judgment dated 30.03.2011, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the First Bench of this Court in Thamiraparani Investments case 2006 (1) CTC 270. Inspite of such specific direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 30.03.2011 in OSA Nos.135 and 136 of 2006, the learned single Judge, without considering the nature of relief sought for in Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006, in the light of the Thamirabarani case, has recorded a finding that by virtue of the order passed in the other applications, the relief sought for in these applications for rejection of plaint has become otiose and not relevant. In this context, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants had drawn our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Thamirabarani Investment Private Limited versus Meta Films Private Limited, reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 1841 wherein it was held as follows:-

12. Further, a reading of para.20 of the plaint clearly shows that the allegation of the plaintiff is that since the defendant is encroaching upon the suit A Schedule property which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff has sought for a decree for permanent injunction. It is not disputed that the registered office is at No.157/1, G.N.T. Road, Chinnambedu Post, Kavarapet 601 206, Tiruvallur District, which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the defendant has no office within the jurisdiction of this Court. The present suit being one for bare injunction, it is a suit for land. In other words, it is a suit for the purpose of acquiring possession of or safeguarding possession of or establishing title to or a right in land viz., the suit schedule property. It is well settled that the expression “suit for land” should not be confined and limited to suits for recovery of possession of land or to obtain a declaration of title to land only. The present suit being one for control for land lying outside the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently, the learned single Judge has rightly revoked the leave.”

28. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants that the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 were filed for a bare injunction and therefore it is a suit for land. In other words, the suit was filed to safeguard the possession and title of the respondent/plaintiff from being alienated or encumbered by the appellants/defendants. The property, which is the subject of the suits are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have exercised jurisdiction over such suits and instead rejected it by invoking the provisions contained under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harsha Estates and others vs. Kalyana Chakravarthy and others, reported in 2018 (4) CTC Page No.21. Useful reference to the judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“10. An analysis of all the above judgments brings out the following principles of law to decide whether a suit is for “suit for land”.

(i) In a suit the reliefs claimed, if granted, would directly affect title to or possession of the land it will be “suit for land”.

(ii) If the object of the suit is something different, but involves the consideration of the question of title to land indirectly, it will also be “suit for land”

(iii) A suit where the claim is for recovery of possession or control of land, it will be “suit for land”

(iv) A suit for bare injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property, will be “suit for land”

(v) In a suit for bare injunction where the plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from dealing with the suit property by creating a charge or alienating or encumbering the property, will also fall within the ambit of a “suit for land”. This Court in M/s. Raja Holdings, Financiers and Merchants, Partnership Firm represented by its Partner Lalitha Raja – in OSA No. 2 of 2018 dated 10.07.2018 has considered this issue in detail.

(vi) (a) In a suit for specific performance of an agreement wherein the relief of delivery of possession of the suit property has been specifically claimed, it will be “suit for land”

(vi) (b) In a suit for specific performance where the suit is only for enforcement of the agreement simpliciter without seeking for any other relief, the same will also fall within the ambit of “suit for land” since the relief of possession is inherent in the relief of specific performance.

(vi) (c) In a suit for specific performance, where the suit is only for enforcement of the agreement simpliciter and the plaintiff specifically claims to be in possession of the suit property and there is no denial of the said fact by the defendant, the said suit will not come within the ambit of “suit for land”

(vi) (d) In a suit for specific performance where the plaintiff apart from seeking to enforce the agreement also seeks a relief of injunction against the defendant, not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment or not to create any charge or encumbrance or not to alienate the suit property, such suits will also come within the ambit of “suit for land”.

11......

12. .....

13. .....

14. Even otherwise in this particular case, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that it is in possession of the suit property and the defendant has refuted it and taken a specific stand that possession was never given to the plaintiffs. Apart from the other issues that will be framed in these suits, this Curt must necessarily frame an issue on possession since the parties are at variance on a material fact regarding possession. This factor is so apparent in present cases and it will be too hyper technical for this Court to ignore this issue at the time of considering the revocation of leave petition since this issue is going to necessarily in at the time of framing issues.”

29. By placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, mentioned supra, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that in the present suits, being C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the respondent/plaintiff has prayed for a bare injunction to restrain the appellants/ defendants from alienating or encumbering the plaint described property to third parties other than the respondent/plaintiff. When such is the prayer sought for in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005, the suits are admittedly one for land and in such event, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. While so, the ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC gets attracted in respect of the filing of the subsequent suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, but the learned single Judge, without considering the same, has erroneously closed the applications for rejection of the plaints, as infructuous and it calls for interference by this Court.

30. Countering the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/defendants, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would justify the orders passed by the learned single Judge, which are assailed in these appeals. According to the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 were filed by the respondent/plaintiff only for bare injunction, as the time for performance of the agreements of sale had not elapsed by then. The respondent/plaintiff was under the bonafide belief that the appellant/defendant would perform the obligations incorporated in the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005. However, since the appellants/defendants returned the advance sale consideration paid by the respondent/plaintiff by way of cheque by citing the encumbrance in the property by the Excise Department, Government of India, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 for bare injunction. Hence, the question of claiming the relief of specific performance would arise only after six months period mentioned in the agreements of sale and that is the reason why the suits were filed only for a bare injunction. However, along with the plaint, the respondent/ plaintiff has also filed applications in Application Nos. 4259 and 4260 of 2005 under Order II Rule 2 (3) of the CPC seeking to omit the relief of specific performance and/or damages against the appellants/defendants with liberty to sue the appellants/defendants on the same cause of action at a later point of time. Thus, no necessity arose for the respondent/plaintiff to file the suits for specific performance when the period stipulated under the agreements dated 27.07.2005 for performance of the obligations of the respondent/plaintiff as well as the appellant/defendant subsisted by then. Therefore, the suits filed for bare injunction is proper and it is not hit by the provisions under Order II Rule 2 of CPC.

31. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff, Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure can be made applicable only if the earlier suit was disposed of and thereafter, a fresh suit is being filed with the same cause of action for fresh relief. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R.Vimalchand and others vs. Ramalingam and others reported in 2003 (1) Law Weekly 484, wherein it was held that when a suit has been filed during the pendency of an earlier suit, the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC is not attracted. However, by citing the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the appellants/defendants have filed Application Nos.222 and 242 to reject the plaint and those applications were dismissed on 08.02.2006. As against the order dated 08.02.2006, O.S.A. Nos.135 and 136 of 2006 were filed and they were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 30.03.2011 remitting the matter for a fresh consideration in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Thamiraparani case. During the pendency of the appeals, as the six months time for performance of the contract lapsed, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file the subsequent suits in O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 on 29.05.2007 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur, for specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005. Immediately, the appellants/defendants filed CRP Nos. 3758 and 3759 of 2007 before this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India for striking off the Plaints in O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 as being barred by the provisions contained under Order II Rule 2 (2) of CPC. This Court, by following the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand case, dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions on 06.09.2009. As against the same, Civil Appeal Nos. 6372 and 6373 of 2012 were filed and they were allowed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012 by holding that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand's case is bad in law and struck off the plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 from the file of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. Thereafter, the instant applications in Application Nos.607 and 617 of 2013 for amendment of the plaints to include the prayer for specific performance and Application Nos. 608 and 618 for excluding the period bona fide spent in filing the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed before this Court. The learned Single Judge had taken up all the applications including the application Nos.222 and 242 of 2006 filed by the appellant/defendant for rejecting the suits filed in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 and passed the order which are impugned in these appeals after hearing the submission of the counsel for both sides at length.

32. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further contended that as stated earlier, even at the time of filing the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the respondent/plaintiff had filed Application Nos. 4259 and 4260 of 2005 seeking to omit the relief of specific performance and damages for breach of contract against the appellants, with liberty to sue on the same cause of action. The said applications were pending until the respondent/ plaintiff filed the applications for amendment of the plaints in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. Thus, even at the time of institution of the suits, as an abundant caution, the respondent/plaintiff sought the leave of this Court to omit the relief of specific performance and damages. Taking note of the above applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff at the earliest point of time and the bona-fides on the part of the respondent/plaintiff in seeking such relief at the time of institution of the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 itself, the learned Single Judge had rightly permitted the amendment of the pleadings to include the relief of specific performance and also excluded the time bona fide spent in prosecuting the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 till such time they were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012.

33. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently contended that by virtue of the amendment, the nature and character or scope of the suits are not varied or modified. There were already pleadings raised in the plaint in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 to the extent that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to file the suit for specific performance at a later point of time, especially when the period for performance stipulated in the agreements for sale dated 27.07.2005 subsisted at the time of filing the suits. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff invited our attention to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rathnavathi and another vs. Kavita Ganashamdas, reported in (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 223 and contended that the said decision was rendered after the Honourable Supreme Court struck off the suits in C.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 on 07.9.2012. In that decision, it was held that the suit for permanent injunction and specific performance are two different cause of action and they are very much maintainable. In Para Nos. 26 and 27, it was held as follows:-

“26. One of the basic requirements for successfully invoking the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is that the defendant of the second suit must be able to show that the second suit was also in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based. As mentioned supra, since in the case on hand, this basic requirement in relation to cause of action is not made out, the defendants (appellants herein) are not entitled to raise a plea of bar contained in Order II Rule 2 CPC to successfully non-suit the plaintiff from prosecuting her suit for specific performance of the agreement against the defendants.

27. Indeed, when the cause of action to claim the respective reliefs were different so also the ingredients for claiming the reliefs, we fail to appreciate as to how a plea of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC could be allowed to be raised by the defendants and how it was sustainable on such facts.

28. We cannot accept the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants when she contended that since both the suits were based on identical pleadings and when cause of action to sue for relief of specific performance of agreement was available to the plaintiff prior to filing of the first suit, the second suit was hit by bar contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

29. The submission has a fallacy for two basic reasons. Firstly, as held above, cause of action in two suits being different, a suit for specific performance could not have been instituted on the basis of cause of action f first suit. Secondly, merely because pleadings of both suits were similar to some extent did not give any right to the defendants to raise the plea of bar contained in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. It is the cause of action which is material to determine the applicability of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and not merely the pleadings. For these reasons, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to obtain any leave from the court as provided in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC for filing the second suit.

34. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kedia Overseas Limited and others vs. Satellite Town Development Private Limited and others, reported in 2010 (2) CTC 609, wherein, it was held as under:-

“27. The relief sought for by the plaintiffs by way of amendment is for appropriate direction directing the defendants to jointly execute the sale deed pertaining to the schedule mentioned properties and they did not seek for recovery of possession of the same. Therefore, the suit in any event cannot be construed as a suit for land.

28. Even though arguments have been advanced on behalf of the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the suit, in view of the bar, under Order II Rule 2, the said contention was rejected by the learned single Judge.

29. This Court taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions and the facts of this case as available through pleadings and the averments made in the application and the counter affidavit, is of the considered opinion that the amendment of plaint sought for by the appellants herein in no way alter the nature and character of the suit. The issue with regard to belatedness on the part of the appellants/plaintiffs to take out the above said application and lack of bona fide on their part are disputed questions of fact which can be thrashed out only during the course of trial. This Court is also of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents/defendants in the event of amendment being allowed."

35. By placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently contended that the cause of action for filing the suit for bare injunction as well as the specific performance, operates in two different areas. The learned Single Judge was also satisfied with the reasons assigned by the respondent/plaintiff that the amendments sought to be made are required for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In fact, necessary averments for filing a suit for specific performance were already made in para No.5 of the plaint in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 itself. Further, by reason of the amendment being allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the appellants/defendants. Moreover, by way of amendment of the pleadings in the plaint, the respondent/ plaintiff has not sought for delivery of possession of the plaint described property nor has pleaded for possession. The respondent/plaintiff only prayed for specific performance of the agreements dated 27.07.2005 and to direct the appellants/ defendants to execute the sale deeds. Therefore, the amendments sought for by the respondent/plaintiff will not bring the relief sought for in the suit into one for land. In this context, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of P.M.A.Valliappa Chettiar and others vs. Saha Govinda Doss and others, reported in AIR 1929 Madras 721 = (1929) 57 MLJ 190 to contend that a suit filed for specific performance is an action in personam and it cannot be a suit for land. In para Nos.12 and 22, it was held as under:-

"12. I may observe that in a suit for specific performance the decree is primarily addressed to the defendant; that is, the Court acts in personam -which a Court of Equity is always entitled to do. Though the land may be described in the conveyance it is not going to be touched even in the execution of the decree as in the case of a decree for sale on a mortgage, nor does any issue as to the title to the land arise in such a suit. These are strong considerations for holding that a suit for specific performance is not a suit for land."

......

“22. A suit for specific performance is a suit “in personam”; a suit for land is an action “in rem”. They are “toto coelo” apart; they belong to different jurisdictions which are now no doubt fused. The object of clause (12) of the Letters Patent is to bar the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court as to actions in rent, when the land is situate outside Madras; it does not bar the jurisdiction as to suits in personam. The word “for” which has occasioned all the difficulty is the same in each case, but a suit for specific performance is not merely in its history but in its nature distinct from a suit for land. That the present suit is concerned with the passing of title to land is a mere accident.”

36. By relying upon the above judgment, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent would contend that when a suit for specific performance is filed, it is an action in personam and it is very much maintainable before this Court, particularly, when the respondent/plaintiff has not sought for possession of the land.

37. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would further contend that the entire object of amendment is to secure the ends of justice. Keeping in view the object of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the learned Single Judge rightly permitted the amendments to be made to include the relief of specific performance in the suits in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005. Further, the suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 are still pending, in which, no issues have been framed. Even the Honourable Supreme Court has not decided any question of fact or law on merits on the pendency of the suits in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 while striking off the suits in OS Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 as being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. Further, there is nothing in the provisions contained under Order II Rule 2 of CPC to bar amendment of pleadings. The amendment of pleadings is permissible solely in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and therefore the contention of the counsel for the appellants/defendants that amendment is barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, is unsustainable. Further, the contention of the counsel for the appellants/defendants with respect to applicability of the principles of res judicata is untenable and it warrants rejection by this Court. According to the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, a mere reading of Section 11 would make it clear that the principle of res judicata will apply only in cases where (i) the matter must be directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and in the later suit (ii) the prior suit should be between the same parties or persons claiming under them (iii) parties should have litigated under the same title in the earlier suit and (iv) The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided in the first suit. In the present case, none of the above criteria have been fulfilled and therefore, Section 11 of CPC has no application to this case.

38. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Prakash Bhasin vs. Raj Rani Bhasin and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 485 and contended that when the amendment sought to be introduced did not materially alter the nature and character of the suit, such amendments are always permissible. It is a discretionary relief vested on the Courts to permit amendments, unless it is shown that such amendments are sought to be made after prolonged delay due to negligence on the part of the person who seeks such amendment. In Para No.6, the Honourable Supreme Court, speaking through Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, in his inimitable words, discussed as under:-

“6. The liberal principles which guide the exercise of discretion in allowing amendments have been laid down in numerous decisions of this Court. Multiplicity of proceedings being avoided is one criterion. Amendments which do not totally alter the characcter of the action are readily granted while case is taken to see that injustice and prejudice of an irremediable character are not inflicted on the opposite party under pretense of amendment of pleadings. The Court must be guide by the rule of justice expressed by the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Po Hnaung AIR 1922 PC 249 AIR (1908) CPC 1283 Vol 29th edn.

“All rules of Court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless, no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change, by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit.

39. Adverting to the provisions contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that both the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 as well as the subsequent suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur are civil proceedings instituted by the respondent/plaintiff. The suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed in good faith. In order to seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the proceedings pending before the Court must suffer from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature due to which the Court is unable to entertain a case. In the instant case, the suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, though had the jurisdiction for being entertained by the said court, was subsequently unable to entertain it as per the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012 striking off those suits. The words 'other cause of a like nature' has also to be given liberal interpretation as it would cover even those circumstances where a party is prevented from getting a trial on merits due to any other defect. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not get attracted to the present case. In order to buttress this submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. West Coast Paper Mills Limited and another, reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 458, wherein, it was held as follows:-

“14. In the submission of Mr. Malhotra, placing reliance on CST Vs. Parson Tools and Plants 1974 (4) SCC 22 to attract the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the following requirements must be specified (SCC p.25, para 6)

'6. (i) both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party;

(2) the prior proceedings had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;

(3) the failure of the prior proceedings was due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature

(4) both the proceedings are proceedings in a court.

In the submission of the learned Senior counsel, filing of civil writ petition claiming money relief cannot be said to be a proceeding instituted in good faith and secondly, dismissal of writ petition on the ground that it was not an appropriate remedy for seeking money relief cannot be said to be “defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature” within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is true that the writ petition was not dismissed by the High Court on the ground of defect of jurisdiction. However, Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide in its application, inasmuch as it is not confined in its applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction, but it is applicable also to cases were the prior proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature. The expression 'other cause of like nature' came up for the consideration of this Court in Roshanlal Kuthalia vs. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi (1975) 4 SCC 628 and it was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where the defects are not merely jurisdictional strictly so called but others more or less neighbours to such deficiencies. Any circumstance, legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the Court of the dispute on the merits comes within the scope of the section and a liberal touch must inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act which deprives the remedy of one who has a right.”

40. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that during the pendency of the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the appellants/defendants filed an application for rejection of the plaint in which reference was made to the rescinding of the agreements dated 27.07.2005, which necessitated the respondent/plaintiff to institute the subsequent suits in O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 for specific performance. In fact, even during the pendency of the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the respondent/plaintiff has filed Application Nos. 4259 and 4260 of 2005 seeking leave to omit the relief of specific performance and damage with liberty to seek such relief at a later point of time. While so, it cannot be contended that the delay in seeking amendment or the prayer to exclude the time spent in instituting O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 is not in good faith. The suits in O.S.Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 were filed soon after the time stipulated in the agreements for sale dated 27.07.2005 were over and when the appellants /defendants failed and neglected to fulfil the obligations contained in the agreements for sale dated 27.07.2005. Therefore, there is no delay attributable on the part of the respondent/plaintiff in asserting their right and interest as an agreement holder in the property in question. In such circumstances, when the respondent/plaintiff has made all due diligence in good faith, the learned Single Judge is right in excluding the time spent in prosecuting the suits in OS. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007. Further, at the time of institution of the suits in O.S.Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand case was holding the field, however, later, it was held to be bad in law by the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore also, it must be held that the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed in good faith and the time spent thereof has to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation to carry out amendments in the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Zafar Khan vs. Board of Revenue, UP reported in 1984 Supp SC 505, which was also relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. In Para No.16 of this judgment, it was held as follows:-

“16. The next limb of the submission was that in the former proceeding restitution was refused on the ground that in the proceeding under the 1953 Act the land in dispute was allotted to the respondents and the allotment had become final, it can be safely be said that the proceeding failed on account of a cause of like nature such as defect of jurisdiction and the appellants would be entitled to exclude the time spent in that proceeding while computing the period of limitation in the suit. It is true that where the expression as a whole reads “from the defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it”, the expression “cause of a like nature” will have to be read ejusdem generis with the expression 'defect of jurisdiction'. So construed the expression “other cause of a like nature” must be so interpreted as to convey something analogous to the proceeding words “from the defect of jurisdiction”. The defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter as the court is incompetent to entertain the proceeding. The proceeding may as well fail for some other defect. Not all such defects can be said to be analogous to defect of jurisdiction. Therefore, the expression 'other cause of a like nature' on which some light is shed by the Explanation (c) to Section 14 which provides “misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction” must take its colour and content from the just preceding expression, “defect of jurisdiction”. Prima facie it appears that there must be some preliminary objection which if it succeeds, the Court would be incompetent to entertain the proceeding on merits, such defect could be said to be “of the like nature” as defect of jurisdiction. Conversely if the party seeking benefit of the provision of Section 14 failed to get the relief in earlier proceeding not with regard to anything connection with the jurisdiction of the court or some other defect of a like nature, it would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 14. Where, therefore, the party failed in the earlier proceeding on merits and not on defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, it would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.”

41. By placing reliance on the above decision, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the subsequent suit filed by the respondent before the District Court, Thiruvallur were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012 preventing the trial in the said case. In other words, in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, the Court did not frame any issues or trial commenced therein. The suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were struck off not on the ground that the Court before which the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were instituted lacks jurisdiction to entertain it or on the ground that there was any other defect of a like nature. The suits in O.S. Nos 202 and 203 of 2007 were struck as being barred by the provisions contained under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Therefore, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act has to be extended to the respondent/plaintiff for computing the period of limitation when O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed on good faith. In any event, the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 and O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were instituted by the respondent/ plaintiff in time and they were not instituted after expiration of the period prescribed under law. Even at the time of filing the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, as an abundant caution, the respondent had taken out an application under Order II Rule 3 of CPC to exclude the relief of specific performance and damages with liberty to seek such relief at a later point of time. When such a necessity arose for the respondent/plaintiff to seek such relief at a later point of time, it cannot be said that the amendments sought for is hit by the provisions of the Limitation Act.

42. Elaborating further with his submissions, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, this Court has original jurisdiction to entertain the suits in C.S. Nos.831 and 833 of 2005, in which amendments were permitted to be made to include the prayer for specific performance. A suit for specific performance is a suit simpliciter for enforcement of agreement of sale of land and it cannot be a suit for land. The prayer sought for by virtue of amendment is only to enforce the terms of the agreements of sale and it does not relate to title of the property. In order to buttress this submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Adcon Electronics Private Limited vs. Daulat and others, reported in (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 698, wherein, it was held as follows:-

“16. From the above discussion it followed that a 'suit for land' is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable property. Whether a suit is a 'suit for land' or not has to be determined on the averments in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein; where the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or delivery of possession of the land or immovable property, it will be a “suit for land”......

17. It may be see that sub-section (1) is an enabling provision. A plaintiff in a suit for specific performance may ask for further reliefs mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. Clause (a) contains relief of possession and partition and separate possession of the property, in addition to specific performance. The mandate of sub-section (2) Section 22 is that no relief under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the Court unless it has been specifically claimed. Thus it follows that no court can grant the relief of possession of land of other immovable property, subject-matter of the agreement for sale in regard to which specific performance is claimed, unless the possession of the immovable property is specifically prayed for.”

43. By referring to the above decision, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that by reason of the inclusion of relief of specific performance, the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 will not partake the character of a 'suit for land', especially when the respondent/ plaintiff did not seek for possession of the property in question. What is sought for by virtue of the amendment is to enforce the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005. The learned single Judge, by appreciating the averments and counter-averments in detail has rightly passed the order dated 23.12.2016 and it call for no interference by this Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

44. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondent in these appeals and perused the materials placed on record. As we have appreciated the factual aspect of the case at required length, we refrain ourselves from reiterating it any further in these appeals. However, certain facts which are essential alone are dealt with hereunder for the purpose of disposal of these appeals.

45. On appreciation of the rival submissions, the following points emerge for our consideration in these appeals, and they are:-

(i) Whether the amendment sought in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 to include the prayer for specific performance is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC?

(ii) Whether the period spent by the respondent in prosecuting O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Court, Thiruvallur till the suits were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012 can be excluded for the purpose of introducing amendment in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance?

(iii) Whether the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 are liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC since the properties, which are the subject matter of the suits, are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

(iv) Whether the amendment sought for by the respondent/plaintiff to include the relief of specific performance in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 without seeking possession of land would make the suit fall within the classification of a “suit for land”

46. Since all the above points are inter-related and inter-connected with each other, they are answered hereunder commonly.

47. It is not in dispute that two agreements, both dated 27.07.2005, have been entered into between the respective appellants/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff in respect of the properties owned by the appellants/ defendants herein at Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai. Admittedly, the properties are situated adjacent to each other and they are contiguous. As per the agreements of sale, the respondent/plaintiff has paid advance sale consideration and also agreed to pay another portion of the sale consideration on 26.08.2005 and the balance payable at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The payment and/or receipt of advance sale consideration by the parties is not in dispute. Admittedly, within 4 days from the date of execution of the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005, the appellants/defendants wrote a letter dated 01.08.2005 informing the respondent/plaintiff about their inability to proceed with the sale transaction on account of the notice issued by the Central Excise Department restraining the appellants/defendants from alienating the properties covered under the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005 to recover their dues. Along with the letter dated 01.08.2005, the amount paid as advance by the respondent/plaintiff was also returned by the appellants/defendants in the form of a cheque. In other words, within 4 days from the execution of the agreement, the appellants/defendants refrained from proceeding with the sale transaction and thereby expressed their inability to convey the property by means of sale to the respondent/plaintiff. On receipt of the letter dated 01.08.2005 of the appellants/defendants, on 18.08.2005, the respondent/plaintiff requested the appellants/defendants to provide proof for such an attempt on the part of the Excise Department to attach the subject matter of the property for recovery of the dues payable by the appellants/defendants. The appellants/defendants also, in response, sent a letter dated 25.08.2005 enclosing an encumbrance certificate dated 22.08.2005 which indicated subsisting encumbrance in the property. It is in this background, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suits in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 before this Court for a bare injunction to enforce the terms of the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005.

48. On notice in the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the appellant/defendant filed Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006 before this Court seeking to reject the plaints in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits as the lands, which are the subject matter of the suits, are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006 were dismissed by this Court on 08.02.2006. As against the order of dismissal dated 08.02.2006, O.S.A. Nos. 135 and 136 of 2006 were filed and they were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.03.2011 remitting the matter back to the learned single Judge with a direction to consider the applications afresh in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Thamiraparani case mentioned supra. Admittedly, during the pendency of the appeals in O.S.A. Nos. 135 and 136 of 2006, the respondent/plaintiff has filed two separate suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur for specific performance. On notice in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, the appellants/defendants filed C.R.P. No. 3758 and 3759 of 2007 before this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India on the ground that the subsequent suits filed in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 are barred under Order II Rule 2 (2) of CPC, since the plaintiff has not obtained any leave in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 before this Court to file the subsequent suits. The Civil Revision Petitions were opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by contending that the subsequent suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 are not barred, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand case mentioned supra holding that leave is required only if the earlier suit is disposed of and when the former suit is pending the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC is excluded. Accepting the same, this Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions on 06.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants filed Civil Appeal Nos.6372 and 6373 of 2012. By Judgment dated 07.09.2012, the Honourable Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeals by holding that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand case is bad and struck off the suits in O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff has filed Application Nos.607 and 617 of 2013 for amendment of the plaints to include the relief of specific performance in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 before this Court. Application Nos. 608 and 618 of 2013 were also filed to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 till they were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012. The learned Single Judge, in the common order dated 23.12.2016, which are impugned in these appeals, has held that when the Honourable Supreme Court had taken the view that the decision rendered in Vimalchand case is bad in law and struck off the plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, now the respondent/plaintiff cannot be found fault with for seeking amendment in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance. The learned Single Judge also found that even at the time of filing the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2015, the respondent/plaintiff, as an abundant caution, had taken out application Nos. 4259 and 4260 of 2005 to omit the relief of specific performance and damage with liberty to seek for such relief at a later point of time. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the time spent by the respondent/plaintiff in prosecuting the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 is bona-fide and excluded the period during which the suits in C.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were pending before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur and permitted amendments to be incorporated in the plaint in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005. With this factual background, it is necessary to decide as to whether amendments can be permitted to be carried out in the plaint in C.S.Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance by excluding the period spent by the respondent/plaintiff in prosecuting the suit in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007. For deciding this question, it is necessary to refer Order II Rule 2 of CPC, which reads thus:-

“Order II

Frame of suit

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.”

49. A reading of Order II Rule 2 CPC would show that a person, who institutes a suit, as plaintiff, must include all the relief which he is legally entitled to claim, in such suit, without omitting to seek any other ancillary or incidental relief, which he may be entitled to at the time of instituting the suit. The omission to seek for any relief, which a plaintiff is entitled to, shall be construed as a relinquishment of such claim. Of course, a plaintiff, on his own can relinquish his claim, if any, which he is entitled to under law, as per the latter part of Rule 2 (1) of Order II CPC in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. The object with which Order II Rule 2 CPC has been framed is that a person, who comes forward with a suit, must include all the relief or reliefs which are incidental or ancillary to the main relief sought for in the suit, without any omission to include any relief. In other words, there cannot be any partial relief asked for in a suit by omitting a particular relief which may be necessary to be asked. This is to ensure that the right of a person is adjudicated at once rather than adjudicating the ancillary or incidental relief in a piece-meal manner. Such a piece-meal adjudication would only result in consumption of valuable time of the Court as well as would frustrate the parties to the litigation, besides being hit by the provisions of Section 11 of CPC dealing with res judicata. Therefore, if cause of action is available to a person to institute a suit by including all the reliefs which are incidental or ancillary to the main relief but he omits to include all such reliefs, the reliefs which were omitted to be sought, would amount to relinquishment and they cannot be asked for subsequently. When once a relief is omitted, without the leave of the Court, such relief cannot be sought to be adjudicated at a later point of time. Applying this test to the case on hand, as mentioned above, within four days from the date of execution of the agreements of sale on 27.07.2005, the appellant/defendant returned the advance sale consideration paid by the respondent/plaintiff by citing their inability to proceed with the sale transaction. Such inability expressed by the appellant/defendant, in the nature of a refusal to perform their obligations embodied in the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005, would give rise to a cause of action for the plaintiff/respondent to sue the appellant/defendant for specific performance of the agreement. However, the respondent/plaintiff had only filed the suit for a bare injunction. Even though the respondent/plaintiff referred to in the plaint about the inability expressed by the appellants/defendants and also their right available to file a suit for specific performance, it was only mentioned that the time stipulated in the agreements for sale dated 27.07.2005 still subsists and therefore, they were advised to file only a suit for bare injunction. We are unable to countenance such an action on the part of the respondent/plaintiff in filing a suit simpliciter for bare injunction, when the cause of action is very much available for instituting a suit for specific performance. The availability of time for performance indicated in the agreements for sale dated 27.07.2005 has nothing to do with the filing of a suit only for a bare injunction when the appellant/defendant had made it clear that they are no longer interested in the sale transaction by reason of the attachment made by the Excise Department against the properties covered under the agreements for sale dated 27.07.2005 for realising their statutory dues. When such clear expression and/or refusal has been made by the respondent/plaintiff, we are at a loss to understand as to why the respondent/plaintiff could only file a suit simpliciter for bare injunction without a comprehensive suit for specific performance. However, as an after-thought, the respondent/plaintiff filed two suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 for specific performance of the agreements dated 27.07.2005 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur, which were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court on 07.09.2012 at the instance of the appellant/defendant. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff has filed applications for amendment of the pleadings in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 by including the relief of specific performance and to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the suit in O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007. The applications were allowed by the learned Single Judge without taking into account the fact that the cause of action for the respondent/plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance was available even at the time of filing C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 but they omitted to seek such relief of specific performance. Therefore, we are of the view that the amendments sought for, to include the relief of specific performance in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, are hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC and the partial relief sought for by the respondent/plaintiff is unsustainable. In this context, we are fortified by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit mentioned supra wherein it was clearly held that the appellant therein had the cause of action to sue for specific performance but he omitted to do so. Having done so, he should not be allowed to sue on that cause of action which he omitted to include when he filed his suit. The ratio laid down in the said Judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court squarely applies to this case on hand.

50. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff that the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed on the strength of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Vimalchand case mentioned supra, but it was held to be bad in law by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the appellant cannot be found fault with especially when the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed based on Vimalchand case, but it was subsequently overruled by the Honourable Supreme Court, has permitted amendments to be made to the plaint in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. Further, the amendment is sought to be carried out in the same suit and not in the subsequent suit. Therefore, the learned Single Judge permitted amendments to be made to incorporate the relief of specific performance in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. However, we find that the respondent/plaintiff has independently filed two suits in O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 before the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, for specific performance, but they were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court since the plaintiff has not obtained any leave in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. By reason of the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the issue with respect to the right of the respondent/plaintiff to seek for specific performance has reached a finality. Further, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff that though the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court, yet, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to seek for the relief of specific performance by way of amendment in the present suit. We are unable to agree with such submission of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Even to seek amendment of the pleadings in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the respondent/plaintiff ought to have obtained leave as required under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, but no such leave has been obtained in this case. Therefore, it is no longer open to the respondent/plaintiff to seek amendment in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance. In this context, we gain strength from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sathyadhan Ghosal vs. Deorajin Debi, reported in AIR 1960 SC 941 mentioned supra. In that decision, it has been clearly held that primarily the principles of res judicata applies between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter – whether on a question of fact or a question of law – has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. In the present case, the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 has become final pursuant to the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, striking off those suits. Thereafter, it is not open to the respondent/plaintiff to seek for the very same relief of specific performance to be inserted by way of amendment in the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, which were only filed for bare injunction.

51. Next it is urged on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff that the suit in C.S. Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 were filed for a bare injunction and they are not suit for land. When the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 were filed for a simple suit for bare injunction, it is maintainable before this Court and this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Per contra, the appellants/defendants contended that in the Application Nos. 222 and 242 of 2006, it was specifically pleaded by the appellants/defendants that the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 are not maintainable before this

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Court, as they come with the classification "suit for land". While so, the suits ought to have been instituted before the Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same and this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. In this context, reliance was made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Thamiraparani Investment Pvt Ltd., case mentioned supra, wherein it was held that the properties described in the suit were situated in Tiruvallur District, outside the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the suit filed for a bare injunction, being one for controlling a land, which is lying outside the jurisdiction of this Court, is a suit for land. Reference was also made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Harsha Estates and others mentioned supra wherein in Para No.10, it was specifically delineated as to what are all the suits which fall within the scope and ambit of "suit for land". By relying upon the Division Bench decisions, it was contended by the appellants/defendants that the instant suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 will also come within the ambit of "suit for land" and they are not maintainable before this Court. 52. Admittedly, the properties which are the subject matter of the suit in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 are situate in Ambattur Industrial Estate, within Thiruvallur District. The suits were filed before this Court for a bare injunction to restrain the appellants/defendants from alienating or encumbering the plaint described property to third parties other than the plaintiff. Assuming that after trial, the claim of the respondent/plaintiff is accepted and a decree is passed in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, it will restrain the appellants/defendants to alienate their lands to a third party as they may wish and in such case, their right to enjoy the property owned by them or to assert a right thereof will be affected and curtailed. Admittedly, the appellants/defendants are the owner of the properties covered in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 and they are in possession of the same, while so, by reason of any order that may be passed in the suit in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, it will adversely affect the appellant/defendant from dealing with their own property in a manner they wish. Thus, any order that would be passed in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 would indirectly have a bearing on the title or interest in the property vested with the appellants/defendants, while so, it must be held that the instant suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 will fall within the classification of "suit for land" and consequently, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suits. 53. The next fold of submission is with respect to the delay in seeking the amendment, to incorporate the relief of specific performance in the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. In this context, it is necessary to refer to Order VII Rule 6 of CPC which deals with the circumstances under which exemption can be provided for presentation of plaint, which were after expiration of period specified for institution of a suit. Order VII Rule 6 CPC reads as follows:- “Order 7: Plaint: Rule 6. Grounds of exemption from limitation law.-- Where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed. Provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any grounds not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint.” 54. In this case, the respondent/plaintiff sought for incorporating the relief of specific performance by way of amendment to the plaints in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 in the year 2012. It is the contention of the appellants/ defendants that for excluding the period spent in prosecuting the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, there is no pleading made in the plaint in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 or the plaintiff did not seek to amend the plaint to that extent. While so, in the absence of any pleading for excluding the period spent in prosecuting the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007, in the plaint in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the delay in seeking amendment to include the relief of specific performance cannot be permitted. Furthermore, the Honourable Supreme Court had struck off the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 at the instance of the appellants/defendants and the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 for permitting amendment to include the prayer for specific performance will be in direct conflict with the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Reliance was also placed on Section 14 of the Limitation Act to contend that the subsequent suits in O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 were not prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. While the suits in C.S. Nos.831 and 833 of 2005 were filed before this Court for bare injunction, with the same set of facts, the subsequent suits in O.S. Nos.202 and 203 of 2007 were filed before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. Thus, the action of the respondent/plaintiff lacks bona fide and it is not in good faith warranting the learned single Judge to exclude the period spent in prosecuting O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 for the purpose of permitting amendments to be made in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Zafar Khan's case mentioned supra to contend that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be extended to the appellants/defendants when the filing of the subsequent suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 is not bona fide and in good faith. 55. It is to be seen that the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 were filed before this Court. As we have held above, these suits are “suits for land” and therefore, they ought to have been filed before the competent Court having jurisdiction. However, the subsequent suits filed by the respondent/ plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 for specific performance is filed before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur which has the jurisdiction to deal with it. The said suit was filed without obtaining any leave as required under Order II Rule 2 of CPC from this Court in the earlier suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, hence, at the instance of the appellants/defendants, the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were struck off by the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court. By reason of the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the relief claimed in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 cannot be re-agitated by the respondent/plaintiff by bringing in amendment to the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, which were not filed before the competent Court having jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the amendments sought to be incorporated by the respondent/plaintiff in C.S. Nos.831 and 833 of 2005, would amount to claiming a relief beyond the period prescribed by the law and consequently, such amendments sought for are hit by the provisions of Order VII Rule 6 of CPC. Furthermore, Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only when the subsequent suit in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed in a Court, which suffers from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature that the suit could not be entertained. In the present case, the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed before the proper Court but the suits were struck off by the Honourable Supreme Court not on the ground that the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits but the suits were filed contrary to the provisions contained under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. In other words, unless the respondent/plaintiff shows that the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 came to an end on account of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, it cannot be construed to be an attempt on the part of the respondent/ plaintiff made in good faith. When the suits in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were filed only before the proper Forum, the time spent for prosecuting those suits ought not to have been excluded by the learned single Judge to permit amendments to be made in the present suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005. 56. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff vociferously contended that the amendment sought for in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 to include the relief of specific performance would not amount to recovery of possession of the properties in question but such relief is sought only for enforcing the terms and conditions of the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005. Therefore, if the relief of specific performance is permitted to be included in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005, the suits will not fall within the classification of “suit for land”. This submission of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff also cannot be accepted in view of the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005. In Clause 7 of the agreements of sale dated 27.07.2005, it was clearly stated that “The Vendor shall deliver vacant possession of the property to the purchaser at the time of the execution of the deed of sale.”. Further, the amendment sought for by the respondent/plaintiff to include the relief of specific performance is to the following effect: "directing the defendant to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the property morefully described in the Schedule to the plaint in favour of the plaintiff on satisfaction of the sale consideration as per the terms of the agreement dated 27.07.2005, in default, this Honourable Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC." 57. Thus, it is clear that upon execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, the vendor-defendants are bound to part with the possession of the property. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the nature of amendment sought for by the respondent/plaintiff will certainly fall within the classification of “suit for land”. Thus, the amendment to include the relief of specific performance would alter the classification of the suits in C.S. Nos. 831 and 833 of 2005 into one of “suit for land”. 58. For all the reasons mentioned above, we hereby set aside the orders dated 23.12.2006 passed in (i) Application No. 608 of 2013 in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 (ii) Application No. 617 of 2013 in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 (iii) Application No. 222 of 2006 in C.S. No. 831 of 2005 (iv) Application No. 242 of 2006 in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 (v) Application No. 607 of 2013 in C.S. No. 833 of 2005 and (vi) Application No. 618 of 2013 in C.S. No. 831 of 2005. Consequently, all the Original Side Appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petition (s) is/are closed.
O R