JUDGMENT Darling S.M. 1. This is a reference on a legal point by the Commissioner of Agra under his order dated the 18th May, 1937. The Plaintiff zamindar sues his tenant Shri Ram for arrears of rent for the kharif of 1342F. and for the kharif of 1343F. The Plaintiff had brought a previous suit u/s 132 of the Tenancy Act against the same tenant for the rabi rent of 1342F.; the rent for the kharif of that year was also due, but was not included in the plaint because the Plaintiff was trying to recover this particular instalment by distraint. The distraint proceedings proved infructuous: the Plaintiff therefore seeks to realise the rent for the kharif of 1342F. along with his present suit for the rent of the kharif of 1343F. The question is whether this claim for the rent for 1342F. is barred by Rule 2 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure. By his appellate order dated the 24th August, 1936, the Collector of Etah has held that the claim is barred: he therefore set aside the order of the Tahsildar. The Plaintiff took the case in revision to the Commissioner, who takes the view that the claim is not barred. Parties have been heard in Court today at Agra. 2. In an addendum to his reference order the Commissioner has drawn v^attention to Bhola Nath v. Bhima S.D. 3 of 1900. There is no question but that distraint proceedings as such are no bar to the recovery of rent u/s 132 of the Tenancy Act, should the former proceedings prove infructuous: this principle is established by the Selected Decision, which however, was passed long before the present Tenancy Act of 1926 was passed. The provisions of Sections 132(1) and 152(2) of this Act are clear. When an arrear of rent is due from a tenant the landholder may, in lieu of, or in addition to, suing for the arrear as provided by this Act, recover the same by distress and the sale of the produce of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due. 2. In the preceding plaint for the rent of the rabi of 1342F. the Plaintiff expressly noted that he had not included the rent for the kharif of that year in his suit because he was recovering the same by way of d straint. 2. In the preceding plaint for the rent of the rabi of 1342F. the Plaintiff expressly noted that he had not included the rent for the kharif of that year in his suit because he was recovering the same by way of d straint. In a case Tar an Krishna Bhowmi v. Sami Uddin (1916) 34 I.C. 51 (Cal) decided by the Calcutta High Court on the 10th March, 1916, it was held that a statement made in a previous suit by a party that he reserved the right of bringing another suit for damages cannon prevent the operation of Rule 2 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the same analogy this statement made in previous plaint cannot help the Plaintiff, .if his failure to include the whole of his claim in the previous suit now operates as a bar to his present suit. I think that the view taken by the Collector is correct: it was not necessary for the Plaintiff to recover the rent for the kharif of 1342F. by way of distraint: nor was it necessary for him to bring his suit u/s 132 of the Tenancy Act before the conclusion of the distraint proceedings. The Plaintiff elected to make his recovery by distraint: unfortunately those distraint proceedings proved infructuous; in the event the Plaintiff would have been wiser to have waited the result of those distraint proceedings before suing u/s 132 of the Tenancy Act: he would then have been free to include his claim for the kharif of 1342F. along with his claim for the rabi instalment of that year. It is now too late to rectify the mistake then made: the present suit for the recovery of the kharif instalment of 1342F. is now barred by Rule 2 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague I would discharge this reference and would dismiss this application in revision by the Plaintiff zamindar: this means that the Collector's appellate order will stand. The tenant should get his costs of these revisional proceedings including Rs. 5 for pleader's fees in this Court. 4. Bomford J.M.- (July 25, 1937)-One may sympathize with the Plaintiff who was no doubt ill-advised, but I agree with my learned colleague that the order of the Collector was correct. The tenant should get his costs of these revisional proceedings including Rs. 5 for pleader's fees in this Court. 4. Bomford J.M.- (July 25, 1937)-One may sympathize with the Plaintiff who was no doubt ill-advised, but I agree with my learned colleague that the order of the Collector was correct. I can see no support myself for the Commissioner's view in Bhola Nath v. Bhima (1916) 34 I.C. 51 (Cal). Avery different point was in issue in that case viz., whether the land-holder having failed to recover his whole dues by distraint could then proceed to sue for the balance.