JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, affirming the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class-(1), Court No.2, Una, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been decreed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendant’) from blocking and causing any sort of obstruction in the right of the passage shown by letters ‘A’ to ‘G’ by raising mangers at point ‘H’ and ‘I’ and further raising any sort of construction over there and the passage and installing pegs for tethering cattle at points P1 to P5 shown red in colour in the site plan, situate in village Tabba, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. and for issuance of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the obstruction by removing the mangers and pegs in the passage. 3. The plaintiff has averred that he has got his abadi in village Tabba, Tehsil and District Una, which is shown in green colour in the site plan and the defendant has also got abadi in the same village which is shown in yellow colour in the site plan. There is a common passage connecting Una-Nangal road marked by letters ‘J’ to ‘N’ shown red which runs from “South to East” and then towards “North on the back of the abadies” and in between abadies which connects the passage marked by letters ‘A’ to ‘G’ shown red in colour. The passage is 9 feet in width throughout. The plaintiff and his family members alongwith other neighbourers are using the said passage without any hindrance. 4. It has further been averred by the plaintiff that the defendant is a headstrong person and trying to put up obstructions in the passage. Previously also in the year 1976 defendant made attempts to forcible construct mangers and fix pegs in the said passage which was foiled by the plaintiff, as a result of which, defendant filed a suit being Civil Suit No.202 of 1976, for permanent injunction, which was dismissed on 3.2.1978. However, the defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment before the learned District Judge. However, the defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment before the learned District Judge. Ultimately, learned District Judge vide order dated 8.12.1986 in Civil Appeal No.40/82, partly accepted the same and declared the defendant to be owner in possession of the disputed site as denoted by letters ‘A’ to ‘E’ in site plan Ex.PW- 4/A allowed the passage of 9 feet wide over the same to be used commonly by the plaintiffs and others. Thereafter, the defendant did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986 which became final and in view of this judgment, defendant removed the mangers and pegs from the passage and did not tether the cattle at that time. But, again in the year 1996 i.e. after a lapse of ten years of the final decision dated 8.12.1986 passed by the learned District Judge, the defendant again constructed mangers and pegs with old material and again started tethering cattle over there in the passage shown by letters ‘A’ to ‘G’ red in colour. The defendant was asked to refrain from his illegal acts but of no use, hence the suit. 5. Defendant by way of filing written statement, took preliminary objections of res-judicata, the suit is barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’), the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing material facts, estoppel and the site plan filed by the plaintiff is not correct. On merits, the defendant admitted, the factum of existence of abadis and alleged that the old room of the plaintiff has been pulled down and two new rooms which have infact been part of common courtyard have been constructed by him. It has been averred by the defendant that the plaintiff is attempting to change the flow of house-water towards his compound. The defendant has admitted, his abadi at two places in village Tabba, regarding previous litigation and the judgment passed by the learned District Judge. It has also been averred by the defendant that he is tethering the cattle at the old site. The defendant has admitted, his abadi at two places in village Tabba, regarding previous litigation and the judgment passed by the learned District Judge. It has also been averred by the defendant that he is tethering the cattle at the old site. The defendant has also admitted that he was declared to be owner in possession of the disputed site denoted by letters ‘A’ to ‘E’ in site plan Ex.PW-4/A subject to the rider that there is common passage of 9 feet in width which shall be commonly used by the plaintiff and others without obstruction being offered by the defendant. The defendant denied other averments made in the plaint. 6. The plaintiff also filed replication to the written statement and reiterated the allegations made in the plaint and denied those of written statement. 7. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, settled inasmuch as 6 issues and decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. An appeal preferred before the learned Appellate Court was dismissed. 8. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether both the learned courts below erred in appreciating the provisions of law applicable, pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decree? (2) Whether suit as filed by the plaintiff is hit by provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and this aspect having been over looked by the courts below vitiated the impugnhed judgments and decrees? (3) Whether statements of DW-1 vis-à-vis document Ex.PW-4/A, site ploan in the earlier suit, stand misread thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? (4) Whether an injunction suit, by a person who is not in possession, is not maintainable in law, but contrary decision as rendered by the courts below vitiated the impugned judgments and decrees?” 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant vehemently argued that impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are unsustainable being illegal and factually incorrect. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant vehemently argued that impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are unsustainable being illegal and factually incorrect. He forcibly argued that both the Courts below have fallen in grave error in pursuing the site plan annexed by plaintiff as the same is totally contrary to the site plan on the basis of which decree in the earlier suit was passed and the site plan Ex.PW-4/A was made part and parcel of the decree. He argued that it has been specifically held by the Courts below that defendant is owner in possession of the suit site and only 9 feet wide passage was allowed to the plaintiff. Perusal of the earlier site plan and present site plan brought on record by defendant vis-a-vis site plan brought on record by the plaintiff would clearly establish that there is no hindrance worth name having put by the present appellant-defendant. Mr.Sharma also invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC where the plaintiff was required to put his case as a whole. 11. Mr.Sharma strenuously argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff is totally barred under Section 11 of CPC since controversy rake up in this case has already been decided by the learned District Judge in Civil Suit No.202/1976 and as such, plaintiff is estopped from raising same issue by way of present suit. He further pleaded that if at all there is any violation of the previous decree, the remedy for the plaintiff in the present suit is not by way of filing the suit but by way of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and as such judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. Mr.N.K. Thkaur, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent supported the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below and forcibly contended that judgments passed by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. 12. Mr.N.K. Thkaur, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent supported the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below and forcibly contended that judgments passed by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. He invited the attention of this Court to the grounds taken in the appeal as well in the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant, whereby factum with regard to passing of decree has been acknowledged by the defendant-appellant, rather it has also been admitted that pursuant to the judgment dated 8.12.1986 passed in Civil Appeal No.40 of 1982 by learned District Judge, 9 feet wide passage was left to the plaintiff (defendant-appellant herein). 13. Mr.Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, pleaded that the provisions of Section 11 CPC are not attracted in the present case solely for the reason that by way of present suit no fresh controversy with regard to the suit land, which was subject matter of earlier suit has been raised. He stated that rights of the parties have already been settled vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986, passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Appeal No.40 of 1982 (arising out of the Civil Suit No.202 of 1976), which has attained finality. By way of present suit they have only prayed decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from blocking and causing any sort of obstruction in the right of passage shown by letters ‘A’ to ‘G’ in terms of the judgment dated 8.12.1986 passed by the learned District Judge as referred to above. 14. Mr.Thakur also refuted the arguments raised by the appellant-defendant that the present suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. He further stated that since plaintiff was aggrieved with the blockage of passage for which he has been held entitled by the District Judge, has filed a fresh suit claiming passage because at the time of filing suit, it was only the claim of the plaintiff that he is entitled to passage and as such suit is maintainable and not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 15. 15. Before adverting to the rival contentions made on behalf of both the parties, it clearly emerges that vide judgment dated 8.12.1986 passed by the learned District Judge in CA No.40 of 1982, the present defendant-appellant was declared to be owner in possession of the disputed site as denoted by letters ‘A’ to ‘E’ in the site plan Ex.PW-4/A to that suit, subject to a rider that there is a common passage of 9 feet wide over the same, which shall be commonly used by the plaintiff and others without any obstruction to be caused by the defendant and the site plan was also form part of the decree granted by the Court at that relevant point of time. 16. Scrutiny of the plaint as well as written statement filed by the parties also reveals that after passing of judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986 by the learned District Judge, as referred above, defendant had removed the mangers and pegs and obstructions from the suit land and thereafter till 1996 plaintiff as well as others had been using that 9 feet wide passage as was marked as ‘A’ to ‘E’ in Ex.PW-4/A. Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from blocking and causing any obstruction of the passage marked by letters A’ to ‘G’ by raising mangers at points ‘H’ & ‘I’. In plaint it has been specifically averred that appellant tried to put obstruction in the passage, right whereof already stands settled between the parties vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986 passed by the learned District Judge in CA No.46/1982. 17. A plain reading of paragraphs 3 & 5 of the plaint filed by the plaintiff in CS No.294/96 suggests that defendant-appellant had filed a suit No.202/1976 claiming the disputed site and other portion as courtyard, but the same was dismissed on 3.2.1978 and it was held that entire portion marked by letters ‘A’ to ‘G’ shown red in colour and other portion shown as courtyard as shown yellow in clour in the site plan in front of the abadi of the defendant was held as passage. However, the learned District Judge, in Civil Appeal No.40 of 1982 filed by the defendant-appellant, vide judgment dated 16.11.1981 remanded the matter to the lower court for fresh decision, who vide judgment dated 2.2.1982 again rejected the plea of the defendant and suit was dismissed. However, the learned District Judge, in Civil Appeal No.40 of 1982 filed by the defendant-appellant, vide judgment dated 16.11.1981 remanded the matter to the lower court for fresh decision, who vide judgment dated 2.2.1982 again rejected the plea of the defendant and suit was dismissed. Thereafter, defendant-appellant again filed Civil appeal No.40 of 1982 which was decided on 8.12.1986, whereby area, marked as ‘A’ to ‘H’ shown red in colour in the site plan, was held as passage to be used commonly by the plaintiff and others without any obstruction. Since defendant-appellant did not file any appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986, the same attained finality. 18. In paragraphs-7 and 8 of the plaint, it has been specifically averred that after decision of the learned District Judge, Una, the present appellant-defendant removed the mangers and pegs as well as obstruction from the passage marked by letters ‘A’ to ‘G’ but after some time he had constructed the mangers and installed pegs with old material and started tethering cattle over there in the passage shown by letters ‘A’ to ‘G’ and as such present suit came into existence. 19. By way of filing written statement, the appellant-defendant has taken preliminary objections both with regard to specific bar under Section 11 CPC and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. However, factum with regard to passing of judgment by learned District Judge in CA No.40/1982, while holding the defendant-appellant to be owner in possession of the suit land, granted passage of 9 feet wide in favour of the plaintiff and other persons has not been denied. Rather, a plain reading of paras 4, 5 and 6 suggests that the defendant admitted that he is bound by judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge having become final between the parties. However, in written statement defendant-appellant has disputed the site plan annexed by the plaintiff alongwith the suit. If the written statement filed by the defendant read in its entirety, it can be safely concluded that existence of 9 feet wide passage as well as its right to use in favour of defendant have not been denied/ disputed. Rather some new facts have been placed on record which may not be relevant for the adjudication of the present case. 20. Rather some new facts have been placed on record which may not be relevant for the adjudication of the present case. 20. Perusal of the averments made in the plaint as well in the written statement, reference whereof has been made hereinabove, leaves no doubt in my mind that 9 feet wide passage was in existence as has been claimed by the plaintiff and admitted by the defendant. Both the parties have categorically admitted that vide judgment dated 8.12.1986, passed by learned District Judge, common passage measuring 9 feet wide over their land was left to be commonly used by the plaintiff and others without any obstruction being offered by the defendant. Since defendant in his written statement has admitted that the plaintiff is entitled to use 9 feet wide passage without any obstruction in terms of previous decree passed by the learned District Judge, admittedly, which has attained finality, plaintiff is entitled to relief prayed for in Civil Suit. Plaintiff has specifically averred in the suit that in 1996 i.e. approximately after ten years of passing of judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986, the defendant started obstructing 9 feet wide passage by raising mangers and fixing pegs and thereafter by tethering the cattle and hence in 1996 new cause of action accrued to him to file the present suit. 21. Plaintiff, with a view to prove that defendants have actually obstructed 9 feet wide passage, brought on record site plan Ex.PW-4/A exhibited in the previous suit and which was proved by In-charge General Record Room, Una. PW-2, Jagdish Ram, proved the site plan Ex.PW-4/A prepared by his father who was dead at the time of examination of the witnesses. PW-3 Bishan Dass has proved the site plan of the present case which is Ex.PW-3/A. This Court had occasion to see both the site plans i.e. Ex.PW-3/A annexed with the present suit as well as previous site plan Ex.PW-4/A, a perusal whereof clearly suggest that they are identical. PW-4 Som Nath stated that defendant Raghubir Singh has installed mangers adjoining to the house of Jaimal and has also fixed pegs to tether the cattle in the said passage and as such, obstruction is being caused to the persons who were using the said passage. PW-4 Som Nath stated that defendant Raghubir Singh has installed mangers adjoining to the house of Jaimal and has also fixed pegs to tether the cattle in the said passage and as such, obstruction is being caused to the persons who were using the said passage. Plaintiff Jiwan Singh PW-5 in his statement categorically stated that defendant has installed pegs and raised mangers over the said passage, as such, it has become difficult to use that passage. In his cross-examination he has clearly reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. Cross-examination of both the aforesaid plaintiff witnesses also suggests that all the witnesses brought by the plaintiff to prove his case have struck of their stand and defendant has not been able to extract anything otherwise while cross-examining them. Rather perusal of witnesses brought on record by defendants supported the case of the plaintiff with regard to obstruction caused by defendant by constructing mangers and raising pegs on the 9 feet wide passage. 22. DW-1 Raghubir Singh admitted that earlier in terms of order passed by the learned District Judge he had removed the mangers as well as pegs from the passage but he admitted the existence of mangers as well as pegs over the disputed passage. He also admitted that cattle are being tethered with the said pegs on the said passage, but he denied that due to tethering of cattle obstruction is being caused to the plaintiff. 23. DW-2 Rawal Singh also admitted installation of mangers on the 9 feet wide passage and pegs have also been fixed in the said passage. He also admitted that defendant is tethering his cattle over the disputed passage. Rather it has come in his evidence that due to tethering of the cattle in the passage the passage has become dirty and it has become difficulty for passers-bye to use that passage. It is ample clear from the evidence brought on record by plaintiff as well as defendant that obstruction has been caused by the defendant over 9 feet wide passage by constructing mangers and fixing pegs for tethering cattle. Fact of tethering cattle on the passage also stands proved as it has come n the evidence of DW-2. It is ample clear from the evidence brought on record by plaintiff as well as defendant that obstruction has been caused by the defendant over 9 feet wide passage by constructing mangers and fixing pegs for tethering cattle. Fact of tethering cattle on the passage also stands proved as it has come n the evidence of DW-2. It has also come in the evidence of DW-2 that earlier in terms of judgment passed by the learned District Judge, mangers and pegs were removed from the passage, meaning thereby that in the year 1996 clear passage of 9 feet wide was given to the plaintiff and other persons at that relevant time. Hence, the allegations/averments of the plaintiff that 9 feet passage left in terms of judgment passed by learned District Judge has been obstructed in 1996 by the defendant stands duly proved and as such he was rightly entitled to file the suit for injunction restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction over the 9 feet wide passage. 24. Now, if I advert to specific objection raised by Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant, that suit is barred by principle of resjudicata read with Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, the same may not be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Perusal of the plaint clearly suggests that plaintiff has sought injunction against the defendant restraining him from causing obstruction over 9 feet passage, right whereof has been already decided by learned District Judge in its judgment dated 8.12.1986 passed in CA No.40 of 1982, which has attained finality. Perusal of the plaint nowhere suggests that plaintiff by way of present suit has sought adjudication of the dispute which has been subject matter of the earlier suit. In view of the present suit, plaintiff has only prayed that defendants may be restrained from causing obstruction on 9 feet wide passage. It is also not disputed that right with regard to use of 9 feet passage stands settled in the previous suit i.e. CS No.294 of 1976 whereby plaintiff and other persons had been held entitled to use the same with the specific rider that defendant will not be causing any obstruction on that. It is also not disputed that right with regard to use of 9 feet passage stands settled in the previous suit i.e. CS No.294 of 1976 whereby plaintiff and other persons had been held entitled to use the same with the specific rider that defendant will not be causing any obstruction on that. At this stage it is important to point out here that by way of present suit plaintiff is not claiming right over passage, which he has already got by way of previous decree dated 3.2.1978. By way of present suit he has only sought mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction on the 9 feet wide passage. Hence, contention of Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel, that present suit is barred by Section 11 of CPC cannot be accepted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 25. So far as Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is concerned, it provides as under:- "R.2. Suit to include the whole claim:- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff be 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 or 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 reliefs so omitted." 26. A bare perusal of the above provisions would indicate that if a plaintiff is entitled to several reliefs against the defendant in respect of the same cause of action, he cannot split up the claim so as to omit one part of the claim and sue for the other. A bare perusal of the above provisions would indicate that if a plaintiff is entitled to several reliefs against the defendant in respect of the same cause of action, he cannot split up the claim so as to omit one part of the claim and sue for the other. If the cause of action is the same, the plaintiff has to place all his claims before the court in one suit as Order 2 Rule 2 is based on the cardinal principle that the defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause. 27. But in the present case, admittedly, at the time of filing the suit, plaintiff was only aggrieved with the obstruction caused by defendant on the 9 feet wide passage, meaning thereby that at the relevant point of time only grievance of the plaintiff was of 9 feet wide passage, to which the plaintiff has been held entitled vide previous suit, which is/was being obstructed by the defendant, as such, decree for mandatory injunction was prayed against the defendant. Hence, Order 2 Rule 2 is not attracted in the present case. 28. If the plaint is read in its entirety, it leaves no doubt in my mind that it does not come in the parameters laid under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC because by way of present suit plaintiff has included whole of the claim which he is entitled to in respect of cause of action, accrued to him at that relevant time. Admittedly, at that relevant time cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff when defendant obstructed the 9 feet wide passage and as such it cannot be concluded that by way of present suit plaintiff has not made whole of his claim as envisaged under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 29. Mr.Ajay Sharma also argued that the plaintiff, instead of filing suit, should have filed execution of the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986, passed by learned District Judge. In the instant case, undisputedly, vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986, passed by the learned District Judge, defendant was held owner in possession of the suit land, meaning thereby decree was passed in favour of the defendant with the rider that he would be leaving 9 feet wide passage. In the instant case, undisputedly, vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986, passed by the learned District Judge, defendant was held owner in possession of the suit land, meaning thereby decree was passed in favour of the defendant with the rider that he would be leaving 9 feet wide passage. Perusal of judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986 suggests that the same was passed in favour of the defendant and not in favour of plaintiff, suit of the defendant was decreed holding him to be owner in possession and only right of passage was given to the plaintiff. Since decree was passed in favour of defendant, there is no question of enforcement of the same under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC by the plaintiff, rather he was competent to file fresh suit on the fresh cause of action, which accrued to him with obstruction of passage caused by the defendant. 30. In this regard this Court in Kamla Devi vs. Jaswant Singh Dod & Ors. Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 1099, has held:- “10. … … … … … … I am of the considered opinion that an application under Order 21 Rules 32 of the Code was not maintainable. Once the decree was passed by a competent Court and the decree-holder was held entitled to lands bearing Khasra No.397/2 and 397/3 and judgment-debtors were declared entitled to possession of land bearing Khasra No.397/1, the matter was over. If thereafter, there was encroachment or illegal interference wigth the possession of the decree-holder, if it was a fresh cause of action, for which an appropriate action could be taken by the aggrieved party and no proceedings under Order 21, Rules 32 of the Code would be competent. (Vide, Uma Shankar v. Sarabjeet, (1996) 2 SCC 371 and Ajit Chopra v. Sadhu Ram, (2000) 1 SCC 114 ).” (page-1103) 31. Moreover, in the present case it stands proved that after passing of judgment dated 8.12.1986, all mangers as well as pegs were removed from the passage and till 1996 plaintiff and other persons had been using that passage without any obstruction and as such for 10 years there was no occasion for the plaintiff to file any legal proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment dated 8.12.1986. In 1996, when the obstruction was caused, which stands duly proved on the record, plaintiff was entitled to file fresh suit which has been done in the present case also. Since suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by resjudicata, as has been held above, there was no specific bar for plaintiff to file fresh suit. If it is assumed for the sake of discussion that the plaintiff was required to file execution application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for enforcement of the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986, admittedly, he had no occasion/cause of action to file the same till 1996 i.e. approximately 10 years and thereafter defendant would have raised objection of limitation to defeat the claim of the plaintiff to which actually he is entitled in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 32. Though both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings in the present case after appreciating the evidence and has left little scope to this Court to re-examine the entire issue as has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, however, solely with a view to reach fair and just conclusion that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not illegal and perverse and same are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, this Court undertook an exercise to examine the ocular or documentary evidence on record. 33. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are correct in law and based upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Hence they are liable to be upheld. 34. Needless to say that this Court, while analyzing the evidence brought on record by both the parties, has examined each and every aspect of the matter by referring to all statements made by witnesses brought on record, perusal whereof, while critically analyzing the evidence on record, leaves no doubt in my mind that there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, as such the same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending application, if any.