Failure to Include Claim Bars Specific Performance Suit

The court found that the suit for specific performance was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC due to the appellant's failure to include this claim in a previous suit for permanent injunction. Despite the differences in the cause of action between the two suits, the court held that the claims in the earlier injunction suit aligned more with frustrating the agreement to sell, thus barring the subsequent suit for specific performance. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree, and directed the suit to proceed to trial on other issues, clarifying the impact on the respondent's suit for ejectment and the applicability of lis pendens.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
2. Validity of bayana agreement and receipts.
3. Entitlement to specific performance.
4. Entitlement to permanent injunction.
5. Relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC:
The primary issue was whether the suit for specific performance was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC due to the appellant's failure to include this claim in a previous suit for permanent injunction. The court examined precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgments in Virgo Industries (Eng) P. Ltd. vs. Venturetech Solutions P. Ltd. and Inbasagaran vs. S. Natarajan. The court noted that if the earlier suit for injunction included claims suggesting the seller's actions were intended to frustrate the agreement to sell, a subsequent suit for specific performance would be barred. The appellant's earlier suit for injunction did include such claims, making the subsequent suit barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC. The court also referenced Rathnavathi vs. Kavita Ganashamdas, emphasizing that the cause of action for the earlier suit for injunction and the subsequent suit for specific performance were different, but ultimately found the facts of the present case aligned more with Virgo Industries.

2. Validity of Bayana Agreement and Receipts:
The trial court had framed an issue regarding the authenticity of the bayana agreement and receipts, questioning if they were forged or fabricated. However, since the suit was dismissed on the preliminary issue of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the court did not delve into this matter.

3. Entitlement to Specific Performance:
The appellant sought specific performance of the bayana agreement dated 16th May 2007. The court noted that the appellant had paid part of the sale consideration and was in possession of the property. However, due to the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC, the court did not proceed to examine the merits of the specific performance claim.

4. Entitlement to Permanent Injunction:
The appellant also sought injunctions against dispossession and creating third-party interests. The court noted that the earlier suit for permanent injunction had been withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, but this liberty did not extend to filing a suit for specific performance, as the earlier suit already included claims related to the agreement to sell.

5. Relief:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, and directed the suit to proceed to trial on other issues. It clarified that the pendency of the suit for specific performance would not affect the respondent's suit for ejectment or the execution of any decree therein. The court also allowed the respondent to seek an order from the trial court to ensure that the principle of lis pendens would not apply to the suit for specific performance.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for trial on other issues, with specific clarifications regarding the impact on the respondent's suit for ejectment and the applicability of lis pendens. The court emphasized the need for careful examination of the factual matrix and legal provisions in determining the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC.

---