JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This first appeal arises out against the judgment and order dated 03.04.1999 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar in Criminal Suit No. 8 of 1999 between Mahant Om Prakash Shastri Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad & others, whereby the court below rejected the plaint of the appellant on Order 7 rule 11 and Section 151 of the C.P.C. 2. Record reveals that the appellant filed a suit No. 139 of 1988 on 31.5.1988 for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, it appears that some writ petition was pending in Allahabad High Court and in the said writ petition, the Allahabad High Court directed the appellant to file a suit for declaration of his title. It is not clear as to whether it was brought to the notice of the court at the time of passing of the order directing the appellant to seek declaration of his right regarding the pendency of suit for permanent injunction bearing suit No. 139 of 1988. Obviously it was not brought to the notice of the court for the reason that if the fact of the pendency of the suit of permanent injunction would have been brought to the notice of the court, the court should not have passed an order directing the appellant to file a fresh suit. However, it was the choice of the plaintiff/appellant and he again filed the suit after the direction of the High Court. 3. In the first suit, the plaintiff has claimed the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant over the subject matter in dispute. In the subsequent suit also the appellant sought a declaration of his title over the same subject matter in dispute. Any type of title can be the only basis for filing a suit for permanent injunction and their being title no permanent injunction can be granted. In the subsequent suit, the declaration of title was involved. The suit No. 139 of 1988 was withdrawn without permission to file fresh suit rather the suit was withdrawn after filing the second suit No. 8 of 1999. After filing the suit the trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11D of C.P.C. 4. In the subsequent suit, the declaration of title was involved. The suit No. 139 of 1988 was withdrawn without permission to file fresh suit rather the suit was withdrawn after filing the second suit No. 8 of 1999. After filing the suit the trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11D of C.P.C. 4. In view of the above facts, it is relevant to quote Order 7 Rule 11 D, Order 23 Rule 1(4) and Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C., which reads as under:- “Order 7 Rule 11 D Rejection of plaint- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- a) ............... b) ............... c) ............... d) Where the suit appears form the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. e) ............... f) ...............” Order 23 1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim:- 1) .......... 2) .......... 3) .......... 4) Where the plaintiff:- a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1) or b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule(3) he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim. 5) .......... Order 2 Rule 2 1. .......... 2. Suit to include the whole claim 1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. 2) Relinquishment of part of claim Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted on relinquished. 3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs- A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Explanation- For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.” 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since, the suit was not withdrawn before filing of the subsequent suit, therefore, in view of the provision in order 23 Rule 1 (4), the suit will not be barred because, the word specific subsequent is specifically used there and the only subsequent suit shall be barred not the pending suit during the pendency of which the first suit is withdrawn. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if suit was barred under order 23 rule 1(4) the suit was barred by order 2 Rule 2. Reliance was placed by the respondent on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.V. Srinivasa Murthy & others Vs Mariyamma & others reported in (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 548. 7. Now we proceed to consider the prayer of both the plaints, in order to find out the relief claimed in the plaint of suit No. 139 of 1988 and in plaint of No. 8 of 1999 which reads as under:- “Prayer in Suit No. 139 of 1988 (a that by a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The Defendant be directed not to make any type of interference into the possession and title to property in any manner either by dispossessing the plaintiff or by treating any illegal trust by way of getting some society registered or in any other manner whatsoever. a) That the cost of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff. b) That any other relief which the court deems fit may be granted to the plaintiff. Prayer in Suit No. 8 of 1999 a) that a declaration be made that the plaintiff is the rightful Mahant and owner-in-trust of the property in suit belonging the said Gaddi described in the schedule at the foot of the plaint and that the defendant No. 2 has no right, title or interest of any sort in it. Prayer in Suit No. 8 of 1999 a) that a declaration be made that the plaintiff is the rightful Mahant and owner-in-trust of the property in suit belonging the said Gaddi described in the schedule at the foot of the plaint and that the defendant No. 2 has no right, title or interest of any sort in it. b) that defendant No. 1 be directed/ordered by way of mandatory injunction to cancel the name of defendant No. 2 from the municipal records of Khata No. 74, the property in suit belonging to the said Gaddi and to record the name of the plaintiff as Mahant and owner-in-trust of the property in suit of the said Gaddi in its records. c) The defendant No. 2 be permanently restrained by means of permanent prohibitory injunction from in any way interfering in the peaceful and continuous possession and title of the plaintiff of the property in suit of the said Gaddi and be restrained from interfering with the management of the said Gaddi, its religious affairs and customary rituals and ceremonies in the conduct of ‘Poja’ and looked after the other services required and further be restrained from illegally and forcibly disposing the plaintiff from the property in suit of the said Gaddi and the defendant No. 2 be restrained from in any way selling/transferring the property in suit or any part thereof by way of sale, lease, mortgage or otherwise and the defendant No. 2 be restrained from changing the nature of the property in suit of the said Gaddi by way of creating illegal trust or by getting some society registered or otherwise. d) That the costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. e) That any other or further relief, to which the plaintiff may be found entitled and which the learned court may deem fit to award in the circumstances of the case, may be awarded to the plaintiff.” 8. From the perusal of the aforesaid prayers made in the suits filed before the court below, it is clear that in both the suits reliefs were almost similar in nature. In the first suit, the relief of permanent injunction and not to interfere with the possession and title was sought. In the second suit, the declaration of title and suit for permanent injunction was sought. In the first suit, the relief of permanent injunction and not to interfere with the possession and title was sought. In the second suit, the declaration of title and suit for permanent injunction was sought. Therefore, under these circumstances, we hold that the suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 and Order 23 Rule 1(4) C.P.C. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly the first appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.