The respondents had taken the plea before the lower Appellate Court that the second suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC because the petitioner could have challenged the decree dated 03.05.1986 in the year 1996 and asked for rendition of accounts in the first suit as well, therefore, only a legal plea has been taken which has been rightly allowed by the lower Appellate Court and once the amendment has been allowed, the issues have been framed according to the pleadings pertaining to the effect of Order 2 Rule 2 or Section 10 of the CPC. However, this plea, at the appellate stage is not available to the respondents in the manner in which it has been allowed by the lower Appellate Court as it has been observed that the respondents had come to know about the pendency of the first suit after the decision of the revision petition by this Court in the year 2009 and thereafter the application has been filed, whereas it has been categorically mentioned in para 16 of the second suit that the petitioner had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, therefore, the respondents were very much aware of the pendency of the first suit by the petitioner in the year 1996 itself and could have easily taken the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 or Section 10 of the CPC at that time but the said plea has been taken as an afterthought at the stage of appeal which has been allowed
