1. ' The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 13th of July, 1980, respondent, Rehmatullah filed a suit for possession of a house bearing No,285/1, Jhang Road, Faisalabad against the petitioner, Nazir Ahmad, in which certain other reliefs like recovery of charges for use and occupation were also claimed. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, besides disputing the claim of the respondent to the relief prayed for on merits, a plea as to the maintainability of the suit was raised on the strength of Order 2 rule 2, C.P.C. It was alleged in this behalf that earlier the respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding the house in dispute in which the relief of possession was omitted and therefore the present suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
2. ' On these pleadings, the trial Court framed the necessary issue regarding the applicability of Order 2 rule 2, C.P.C. The trial Court without recording evidence and hearing arguments found this issue in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, vide its order dated 16-12-1982. This order has been assailed in the present revision petition.
2. In order that a plea of bar under Order 2 rule 2(3), C.P.C. Should succeed, it must be shown that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action on which the previous suit was based; that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one reliefs; that being thus entitled to more than one reliefs, the plaintiff without leave obtained from the Court omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. From the above analysis, it becomes clear that in order to sustain such a plea it is necessary that the pleadings in the previous suit should be produced in evidence in the suit in which such an objection is raised.
3. ' Unfortunately in the present case, no evidence was recorded by the trial Court on the preliminary issue with the result that neither the plaint nor the written statement filed in that suit are part of the record of the present case. Similarly the order by which the previous suit was disposed of has not been produced. It appears however, that the previous suit was withdrawn. The contents of the order passed by the Court in this behalf are disputed by the learned counsel for the parties. The production of this order is necessary for the decision of this matter. In the absence of the relevant material, the resolution of this controversy regarding the applicability of Order 2 rule 2, C.P.C. Is not possible and the matter is to be remanded to the trial Court.
4. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for its decision afresh. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit after framing necessary issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence. No order as to costs.