ORDER Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. The petitioner, who is plaintiff in OS No. 130/2013 on the file of Civil Judge at Hungund, is before this Court, challenging the order dated 13.8.2013 passed on I.A-III filed in the above-said Suit, at Annexure-K. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition may be stated as under: The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondents for the following reliefs: (i) to declare that the termination of contract by order dated 26.04.2012 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and direct the 3rd defendant to return the amount encashed for mobilization advance bank guarantee and performance guarantees on submission of fresh Bank guarantees; (ii) to issue an order of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to permit the plaintiff to continue the contract work by virtue of the contract agreement dated 18.10.2010 till it is completely executed as per clause 26 Section 7 of GCC; (iii) to pass decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entrusting the work covered under the agreement dated 18.10.2010 entrusted to the plaintiff herein to any other agency or to carry out through departmentally, according to law; and (iv) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstance of the case and direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit. Along with the Suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application (I.A-III) under Order II Rule 2 of CPC praying to grant leave to the plaintiff to file separate Suit for damages for breach of contract if the trial Court does not grant decree as prayed for in the suit. Defendants filed written statement and objections to the application filed under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. The trial Court, after hearing arguments on I.A-III, passed the impugned order rejecting the application filed under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. This is impugned in this Writ Petition. 3. Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the nature of relief sought for in the Suit, the petitioner is entitled to seek permission to file a separate Suit for damages in the event of dismissal of the Suit. He relies upon the decision reported in (2013) 1 SCC 625 [VIRGO INDUSTRIES ((ENG.) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. VENTURETECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED]. He relies upon the decision reported in (2013) 1 SCC 625 [VIRGO INDUSTRIES ((ENG.) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. VENTURETECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED]. But, the trial Court erred in holding that the principle laid down by the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of plaintiff. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 5. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the impugned order calls for my interference? 6. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons: The Suit filed by the plaintiff is based on a contract. It was terminated by defendant No. 3. In the decision rendered in Virgo Industries (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "9. Order 2 Rule 1 requires every suit to include the whole of the claim to which the plaintiff is entitled in respect of any particular cause of action. However, the plaintiff has an option to relinquish any part of his claim if he chooses to do so. Order 2 Rule 2contemplates a situation where a plaintiff omits to sue or intentionally relinquishes any portion of the claim which he is entitled to make. If the plaintiff so acts, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC makes it clear that he shall not, afterwards, sue for the part or portion of the claim that has been omitted or relinquished. It must be noticed that Order 2 Rule 2(2) does not contemplate omission or relinquishment of any portion of the plaintiff's claim with the leave of the court so as to entitle him to come back later to seek what has been omitted or relinquished. Such leave of the court is contemplated by Order 2 Rule 2(3) in situations where a plaintiff being entitled to more than one relief on a particular cause of action, omits to sue for all such reliefs. In such a situation, the plaintiff is precluded from bringing a subsequent suit to claim the relief earlier omitted except in a situation where leave of the court had been obtained. In such a situation, the plaintiff is precluded from bringing a subsequent suit to claim the relief earlier omitted except in a situation where leave of the court had been obtained. It is, therefore, clear from a conjoint reading of the provisions of Order 2 Rules 2(2)and (3) CPC that the aforesaid two sub-rules of Order 2 Rule 2 contemplate two different situations, namely, where a plaintiff omits or relinquishes a part of a claim which he is entitled to make and, secondly, where the plaintiff omits or relinquishes one out of the several reliefs that he could have claimed in the suit. It is only in the latter situations where the plaintiff can file a subsequent suit seeking the relief omitted in the earlier suit proved that at the time of omission to claim the particular relief he had obtained leave of the court in the first suit." The above decision is applicable on all the fours to the case on hand. In this regard, I refer to a decision reported AIR 2003 KAR 279 (VENUGOPALA Vs. VASANTHA @ SUBHA RAO). In that case, it was held that the failure of the plaintiff to claim mesne profits in the main suit for possession does not amount to relinquishment of claim. It does not prevent the decree holder from putting forth a claim after the date of decree as the cause of action for the claim of mesne profits arises subsequent to passing of decree. In the instant case, if the plaintiff fails to get declaration that the termination of contract by order dated 26.4.2012 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, he is entitled to claim damages. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff, with abundant caution, filed an application under Order II Rule 2 of CPC seeking leave to reserve his right to file a separate Suit for damages after the disposal of the Suit. The impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. In the result, I pass the following order: Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.8.2013 passed on I.A-III in OS No. 130/2013 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hungund, at Annexure-K is set aside. Consequently, I.A-III filed under Order II Rule 2 of CPC in OS No. 130/2013 on the file of Addl. 7. In the result, I pass the following order: Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.8.2013 passed on I.A-III in OS No. 130/2013 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hungund, at Annexure-K is set aside. Consequently, I.A-III filed under Order II Rule 2 of CPC in OS No. 130/2013 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge, Hungund, is allowed, granting leave to the petitioner to file a separate Suit for damages for breach of contract, after the disposal of the Suit.