9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby, it dismissed the civil revision registered as CRP(PD) No.1872 of 2016 and also an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC registered as Application No.3666 of 2016 in Commercial Suit No.323 of 2016. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant in both the proceedings is before this Court. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is as follows: A Leave and License agreement was originally entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 25.11.2008. This agreement was superseded by another agreement dated 01/12/2010 whereby the appellant became a licensee in respect of a warehouse on a monthly license fee of Rs.30 lakhs with an escalation clause. As there was default in payment of st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leave to sue the appellant by way of a separate suit claiming arrears of storage charges, warehouse charges and damages for illegal use and occupation beyond the period allowed in the notice dated 27.11.2014. The said application registered as IA No.2001 of 2015, was allowed by the District Munsif Court on the same day. However, the High Court, upon revision by the appellant, set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the defendant to the suit i.e. the appellant. This order was passed by the High Court on 28.01.2016. After remand, the District Munsif Court, by a detailed reasoned order dated 15.04.2016, again granted leave under Order II Rule 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the respondent. 11. From the above, it is noticeable that both the sides preferred two suits each, however, one of the suits i.e. Suit No.101 of 2015 has already been withdrawn by the respondent and, as such, three suits remain pending which are all commercial suits pending before the Madras High Court inter se parties. 12. It would be worthwhile to mention here before proceeding any further that the Trial Court as also the High Court had found that both the suits were filed based upon different causes of action. The High Court had further found that the respondent had taken leave for instituting the second suit against the appellant under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC. It also found that the respondent had specifically stated in the plaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case. 15. On the other hand, Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment and order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference by this Court. Further, strong reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Petrolium Corporation Ltd. And another Vs. ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd 2023 SCC Online SC 1614 ., wherein under similar facts, this Court held that a second suit for arrears of rent and damages would not be barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. 16. Para 18 of the above said judgment is reproduced hereunder : "18. In view of the enunciation of law, as referred to above, suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
