CR/6791/2026 of RANBIR SINGH Vs RAMKESH on 10 September 2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant for setting aside of the order dated 08.07.2026 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order II Rule 2 read with Order XXIII Rule 1, Sections 12 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking dismissal of the suit, has been dismissed.

2. A perusal of the facts of the case would show that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure P-3), along with a prayer for permanent injunction under Sections 10 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It transpires that the petitioner/defendant has filed an application dated 09.02.2025 under Order II Rule 2 read with Order XXIII Rule 1, Sections 12 and 151 of the CPC seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction. The said application was considered by the Trial Court and, vide order dated 08.07.2026 (Annexure P-11), the same was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order dated 08.07.2026 (Annexure P-11), the petitioner/defendant has filed the present revision petition.

3. The only contention raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant is that since the parties to the earlier suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction were the same, as such, the subsequent suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell is liable to be dismissed in light of Order II Rule 2 read with Order XXIII Rule 1, Sections 12 and 151 of the CPC. He further argued that the earlier suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was withdrawn without obtaining any liberty to file a fresh suit and, as such, on this ground also, the subsequent suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant and perused the paper-book with his able assistance.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was withdrawn by him. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure P-3), along with a prayer for permanent injunction under Sections 10 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The mere fact that the parties to both the suits are same would not, by itself, attract the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. It is settled law that suit for permanent injunction and suit for specific performance are based on entirely different cause of action. A suit for permanent injunction is based upon an apprehension of interference with or dispossession from the property, whereas a suit for specific performance is based upon the alleged non-performance or refusal by the defendant to perform his contractual obligations under the agreement to sell. It is also not in dispute that the earlier suit was not decided on merits and was, in fact, withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff. The withdrawal of the earlier suit, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not, by itself, operate as a bar to the subsequent suit for specific performance, particularly when the latter suit is founded upon the alleged non-performance of the agreement to sell.

6. In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order dated 08.07.2026 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned Trial Court, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. 10.09.2026 (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) d.gulati JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No