JUDGMENT : RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The suit is ripe for framing of issues. 2. The counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for both the defendants have handed over proposed issues which are taken on record. 3. The counsels have been heard on the framing of issues. 4. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of possession of immovable property and for recovery of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- from the defendants on account of damages. It is, inter alia, the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendants in the said immovable property and the defendants, without recourse to law, have forcibly taken possession of the property from the plaintiff and thereby causing loss of infrastructure and movable property of the plaintiff of the value of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- and loss due to interruption of business of Rs. 70 lacs to the plaintiff. 5. The defendants in their proposed issues have placed the onus of proving dispossession on the plaintiff. However, on enquiry that since the defendants also admit tenancy and there is no document of delivery of possession, why should the onus be on the defendants to prove delivery of possession by the plaintiff, the counsel for the defendants agrees. 6. The counsel for the defendants has also raised an issue of the present suit being barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `CPC'). It is argued that the plaintiff, prior to instituting this suit, had instituted a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the ingress and egress of the plaintiff and its officials and the suit is thus barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. However, on enquiry it is stated that the earlier suit though instituted in this Court, on increase in minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, has been transferred to the Patiala House Courts. 7. The plea of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the plaintiff, after the ex parte ad interim order in the earlier suit having accessed the premises and having been dispossessed thereafter. If the defendants prove delivery of possession prior thereto, then the plaintiff will be entitled to recovery of possession or damages and the question of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC will also arise. If the defendants prove delivery of possession prior thereto, then the plaintiff will be entitled to recovery of possession or damages and the question of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC will also arise. However, if the defendants fail to prove the same, it cannot be said that the present suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. Moreover Supreme Court in Rathnavathi v. Kavita Ganashamdas (2015) 5 SCC 223 and Sucha Singh Sodhi v. Baldev Raj Walia 2018 SCC OnLine SC 373 has held that cause of action for a relief of permanent injunction and for a relief of specific performance is different and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC does apply. On the same ratio, cause of action for present suit and earlier suit are different and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC will apply. For this reason also, the plea of Order II Rule 2 is a substantial plea and it has been held in (i) Ashoka Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (113) DRJ 193 ; (ii) P.S. Jain Co. Ltd. v. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. (2013) 205 DLT 302 ; (iii) Precision Steels v. Reeta Salwan (2013) 205 DLT 695 ; (iv) Kawal Sachdeva v. Madhu Bala Rana 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1479; and, (v) Adarsh Kumar Puniyani v. Lajwanti Piplani 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14022 that the issues are to be framed on every plea taken in the pleadings and have to be framed only on substantial pleas which in the event of proving have a chance succeeding. It is found that allowing an issue to be framed would waste time and influence the outcome of the suit, such an issue need be framed. 8. The same is the position with respect to the issue proposed on authority of the person instituting the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. Even if it were to be proved that there is a defect in instituting, the same is rectifiable and in the event of plaintiff succeeding, possession and damages will be given to the plaintiff who was admittedly in possession and to anyone else. Thus, for framing of issues on the same, the need does arise. 9. Even if it were to be proved that there is a defect in instituting, the same is rectifiable and in the event of plaintiff succeeding, possession and damages will be given to the plaintiff who was admittedly in possession and to anyone else. Thus, for framing of issues on the same, the need does arise. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed:- (i) Whether the plaintiff delivered vacant peaceful physical possession of the tenanted premises in the tenancy of the plaintiff to the defendants in December, 2014 and removed all their belongings there from? OPD (ii) If the defendants failed in the aforesaid issue, to damages of what amount, is the plaintiff entitled to from the defendants for loss in business on account of forcible dispossession from the premises? OPP (iii) Whether the goods and belongings of the plaintiff of the value of Rs. 75 lacs were lying in the premises and if so to what amount is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendants on account of loss thereof? OPP (iv) Whether the plaintiff had spent a sum of Rs. 50 lacs on the infrastructure in the premises and to what amount on the said account is the plaintiff entitles to from the defendants? OPP (v) If the plaintiff is found entitled to any amounts from the defendants, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any interest thereon and if so at what rate and for what period? OPP (vi) Relief. 10. It is clarified that no issue on the relief claiming possession has been framed inasmuch as if the defendants succeed on issue No.1, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the possession and if the defendants fail on the same, the plaintiff would be ipso facto entitled to be put back into possession of property by removing anyone else who may be inducted into the same by the defendants. 11. The counsel for the defendants, at this stage has changed his mind and now states that the onus of dispossession should be on the plaintiff. 12. I am unable to agree. It is the defendants who, as aforesaid, are claiming delivery of possession by the plaintiff and the onus has to be necessarily on the defendants. 13. 11. The counsel for the defendants, at this stage has changed his mind and now states that the onus of dispossession should be on the plaintiff. 12. I am unable to agree. It is the defendants who, as aforesaid, are claiming delivery of possession by the plaintiff and the onus has to be necessarily on the defendants. 13. The counsel for the defendants has also argued that onus of proving that the defendants evicted the plaintiffs will be on the defendants and the onus of proving that the plaintiff has been dispossessed would be on the plaintiff. 14. I am unable to agree with the said submission also. If the defendants are unable to prove eviction, the same ipso facto amounts to dispossession by unlawful means. 15. No other issue arises nor is pressed. 16. The parties to file their list of witnesses within 15 days. 17. I have proposed to the counsel for the defendants that since the onus of proving the delivery of possession is on the defendants, the defendants should lead evidence first inasmuch as I am of the view that a lot of clarity will emerge after the evidence on the said issue and the possibility of the parties, at that stage, seeing the matter in the true perspective, also exists. 18. The counsel for the defendants states that he leaves the said aspect to the Court. 19. Accordingly, the defendants to lead their evidence first and if so desire can lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues of which onus is on the plaintiff. 20. The defendants to file affidavits by way of examination-in-chief of their witnesses within six weeks. 21. Option of having evidence recorded on commission has been declined. 22. List before the Joint Registrar on 5th July, 2018 for fixing dates of trial. IA No. 5941/2016 (of the plaintiff u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) 23. The counsels inform that there is no interim order till now and the counsel for the defendants on further enquiry states that the premises, earlier in occupation of the plaintiff as tenant, are being let out by the defendants from time to time to different persons. 24. The counsels inform that there is no interim order till now and the counsel for the defendants on further enquiry states that the premises, earlier in occupation of the plaintiff as tenant, are being let out by the defendants from time to time to different persons. 24. The application is disposed of by requiring the defendants to, while so letting out the premises to others, inform such others that they would also be required to abide by the decree of possession if any in favour of the plaintiff in this suit. The defendants are, however, restrained from transferring or selling or mortgaging the portion of the property which was earlier in the tenancy/occupation of the plaintiff. 25. The application is disposed of.