JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Landlords respondents have instituted suit for eviction against tenant petitioner in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 51 of 2005 before J.S.C.C., Agra. Initially in the plaint, only relief for eviction was sought. Thereafter, relief for recovery of unpaid rent was also sought to be added through amendment in the plaint. Said application was allowed by the trial Court on 5.10.2007. Against the said judgment and order, petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 74 of 2007, which was dismissed on 3.3.2008 by District Judge, Agra, hence this writ petition. 3. The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the original plaint plaintiff omitted to claim the relief for unpaid rent, hence by virtue of Order II Rule 2 (3), C.P.C. (op.cit.) it became barred. “(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.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited AIR 1954 Bom. 125 , K. Ram Chandran v. R. Shanker. In the said authority, it has been held that even if subsequent suit is filed during pendency of first suit, bar of Order II Rule 2, C.P.C. will apply to the second suit, if other ingredients are made out. 5. However, in my opinion, if subsequent suit will be barred for a relief on the basis of Order II Rule 2, C.P.C., then in the same suit amendment may be sought for adding the said relief. In this regard, reference may be made to AIR 1940 Privy Council 70, in which it has been held that the rule does not preclude the amendment of plaint by the addition of the claim, which had been omitted. 6. The words ‘he shall not afterwards sue’ used in the aforesaid provision clearly mean that subsequent suit (whether filed after the decision of the first suit or during its pendency) is barred but amendment is not barred. Seeking amendment does not amount to sue. 7. 6. The words ‘he shall not afterwards sue’ used in the aforesaid provision clearly mean that subsequent suit (whether filed after the decision of the first suit or during its pendency) is barred but amendment is not barred. Seeking amendment does not amount to sue. 7. Moreover, Explanation-II has been added in Order II Rule 2, C.P.C. by U.P., which is quoted below : “Explanation.—For the purposes of this rule a claim for the ejectment of the defendant from immovable property let out to him and a claim for money due from him on account of rent or compensation for use and occupation of that property, shall be deemed to be claims in respect of distinct causes of action.” 8. In 1977 AWC 449 (454), it has held that the aforesaid explanation is not affected by Section 97(1) of the Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976 (C.P.C. amendment). 9. Accordingly, by virtue of explanation added by U.P., Order II Rule 2, C.P.C. itself is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10. Revisional Court also clarified observation of trial Court, which had been made against the plaintiff, who was respondent in the revision. By virtue of Order XLI Rule 33, C.P.C., it was quite permissible and in my opinion the clarification given by the revisional Court was quite just and warranted. 11. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. ————