of 2015 to 2019, for use and occupation, damages were claimed by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the earlier was suit filed in the year 2007 for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession, however the cause of action for the present suit is that they have mentioned about the date of registered document of the year 1983. Furthermore, as on date, appeal against the said decree is pending but the prayer in the suit reveals that till handing over the vacant possession they claiming damages but on the date of filing of the present suit both parties filed appeal which is pending in A.S No. 729 and 150 of 2019. As rightly pointed out by the defendants counsel there was no leave obtained by the plaintiff by invoking order 2 rule 2 of CPC in earlier suit O.S No. 92 of 2007 for comprehensive relief wherein the plaintiff claiming relief of declaration and recovery of possession. If at all plaintiff is entitled for damages he should have claimed in the earlier suit itself. Therefore, during the pendency of the present appeal, by filing the present suit claiming relief of damages for the use and occupation as such is not maintainable nor obtained any leave by invoking Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC therefore, the Trial Court erroneously held that the suit as such is maintainable. Further, the cause of action for both the suit are one and same and there is no new cause of action aroused between the parties. Since 4
