allow the defendant No.1 from transferring the suit property in the name of any person. The present suit has been filed for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Sunita Walia to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property to any third person. Thus, it is clear that in the previous suit there was no prayer for declaration and there were two defendants in the earlier suit however, in the present suit there is only one defendant. The question that whether the present suit has been filed in contravention of Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC can be decided by giving the opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. In case the suit is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at this stage, the plaintiff would not even be able to lead the evidence to prove that his suit is not barred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. There is additional relief of declaration in the present case and name of one defendant has been omitted in the present case, therefore, in such circumstances it would be appropriate if the question that whether the present suit is barred by law particularly under Order 23 Rule 1(4) is decided after giving opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence. Hence, in my considered opinion, the present plaint is not liable to be rejected at this stage on this ground.
