JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated October 27, 1992 of the trial Court dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint.
2. Plaintiff and defendants are the owners in possession of their houses situated in Ward No. 8, Dhuri. Defendant No. 1 is the owner of house situated towards the northern side of the house of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allow him to plaster the northern side of the wall of his house and further directing them to plug the hole illegally made by them in the roof of room No. 1 and further directing them to make proper arrangement for the outlet of water etc. The suit was at the initial stage when the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff sought a number of amendments by moving the application, a copy of which has also been placed on the record of the revision petition. The application as noticed above was dismissed by the trial court by its order dated October 27, 1992.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the trial court acted with material irregularity in dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint. One of the amendments sought was to seek possession of certain portion of the property over which construction had been effected by the defendants some 15 years back. This amendment was considered by the trial court at great length and ultimately it came to the conclusion that the same could not be granted being barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. The trial court did not, however, consider the grant of other amendments as prayed for in the application seeking amendment of the plaint though some of the amendments sought were of a formal nature.
4. Learned counsel in support of his submission relied upon Barbara Singh v. Akhshaya Kumar, (1983) 85 P.L.R. 485 to contend that the trial Court had taken into consideration the provisions of Order 2 Pule 2 of Code for declining the relief, which provision according to the counsel could not be taken into consideration. After noticing the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2, it was held as under in Darbara Singh’s case (supra):-
“From a reading of the rule, it is evident that if a plaintiff is entitled to only relief with regard to a cause of action, he is required to file a suit for whole of the relief and if he is entitled to more than one relief, he is required to file a suit for all the reliefs together. In case he does not sue due to inadvertence or otherwise for a part of the claim or any of the reliefs, he is barred to claim the same in a subsequent suit. The rule is based on the principle that a defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause of action. It does not for-bid that the plaintiff who claims a part of the relief or one of the reliefs cannot introduce that claim by way of amendment. The question whether an amendment by which a plaintiff wants to introduce a part of the relief or one of the reliefs should be allowed or not is to be determined by taking into consideration the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. The trial Court erroneously dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that it was barred under Order 2 Rule 2(3), which is not applicable to the application for amendments. The trial Court has thus acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction and its order is liable to be set aside.”
5. In the present case, seeking possession of a part of the properly which is alleged to have been encroached upon by the defendants, is apparently not a part of the cause of action on which the previous suit is based. It is entirely a different cause of action. Thus, it could not said that the amendment sought was barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. Thus, the trial court acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in declining the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint, on the principle of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. The trial court did not examine any other aspect of the mater for declining the relief.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the trial court did not advert to any other aspect of the application seeking amendment of the plaint as most of the other amendments sought were of formal nature and could not have been denied. Counsel for the respondents was unable to show as to how the amendments which were of a formal nature had been declined or could be declined by the trial Court. In the situation, it is not considered necessary to examine each and every amendment which was sought for. In the situation, the trial court is directed to dispose of the application of the plaintiff afresh in respect of amendments sought on their own merits after hearing learned counsel for the parties.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision stands disposed of accordingly. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on June 2, 1994. No costs.