JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioners/defendants being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby it decided the issue of jurisdiction against them, have filed the instant civil revision petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nahan camp at Sarahan which was registered as Civil Suit No. 8/1 of 2011, thereby seeking decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-defendants stating therein that Tulsa wife of late Yanu was owner of land as detailed in the plaint which was measuring 77 bighas and 9 biswas situated in revenue village Nei Lothan, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh as per jamabandi for the year 1953- 54. As per plaint, she inducted Jalam Singh, father of plaintiff as Gair Maurusi tenant in respect of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 19/40 Khasra No. 40, 42 plots 2 total measuring 6 bigha 1 biswa situate in village Nei Lothan and Tulsa became owner in possession of total area of 71 bighas and 8 biswa. It is further averred that half share of Tulsa was given by her to Jalam Singh, who died later and his estate was acquired by the plaintiff. As per his plaint, he became owner of the land entered in Khata/Khatauni No. 19/40 Khasra Nos. 40, 42 plots 2 total measuring 6 bighas and 1 biswa and total ownership of plaintiff was 41 bighas and 15 biswas. It was further averred that in November, 2010 defendant threatened to disposses the plaintiff. He thereafter enquired and came to know that entries of gair maurusi tenant in the name of his father had been deleted. Partition proceedings vide case No. 1/9 of 2009 titled Balwant Singh vs. Bala Ram were decided on 30.11.2009 and on the basis of such partition proceedings further entries in revenue record were incorporated. 3. That the defendant contested the suit by filing written statement taking therein preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction and estoppels. On merits, averments as made in the plaint were denied. It was averred in the written statement that Gurdiya son Paras Ram was owner in possession of suit land to the extent of ½ share vide mutation No. 35 dated 16.9.1955 as per jamabandi for the year 1953-54. On merits, averments as made in the plaint were denied. It was averred in the written statement that Gurdiya son Paras Ram was owner in possession of suit land to the extent of ½ share vide mutation No. 35 dated 16.9.1955 as per jamabandi for the year 1953-54. It was denied that father of plaintiff namely Jalam Singh ever remained as tenant over the portion in possession of Gurdiya. It was averred in the written statement that plaintiff and his father remained in possession of the suit land together and as such there is no question of father being tenant under his son. Tulsa gifted land to Bala Ram being son of Jalam Singh vide mutatin No. 47 dated 26.5.1966 as Gurdiya acquired ownership on 16.09.1955 about 10½ years ago. Jalam Singh and Bala Ram son of Jalam Singh were living jointly and as such were owners and there is no question of tenancy of father under son as the same is against the law. It was averred that in pursuance to the partition proceedings. The land comprised in Khasra No. 40 and 42 measuring 6-1 bighas i.e. suit land has been allotted to Bala Ram and according to the entries of Jamabandi for the year 2010-11, he is owner of this entire land. After partition, the parties were put in respective possession of their portions and such proceedings were never challenged by Bala Ram and as such same has attained finality. It was also stated that since Tulsa gifted her share to Bala Ram as such the plaintiff had no right over the share of Gurdiya who was owner of the property. It was further averred that since defendant purchased land from Gurdiya from his share as such there is no question of plaintiff being tenant over the portion belonging to Gurdiya. 4. It was further averred that since defendant purchased land from Gurdiya from his share as such there is no question of plaintiff being tenant over the portion belonging to Gurdiya. 4. The learned trial Court on 13.08.2014 framed the following preliminary issue: “1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as alleged?...OPD” and vide order dated 22.06.2015 decided said issue and held that since controversy involves the question as to whether Tulsa was sole owner of suit land or was joint owner alongwith one Gurdiya and which portion of the suit land was given on tenancy by Smt. Tulsa and further since legal heirs of original owner have denied the fact of tenancy of the father of the plaintiff, as such only a civil court could decide the issue. 5. The operative portion of the order reads as under :- “From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is seen that besides the question of tenancy there is also dispute between the parties regarding the fact whether Smt. Tulsa was sole owner of the suit land or was joint owner alongwith one Gurdiya. The question is also to be decided which portion of the suit land was given on tenancy by Smt. Tulsa. Further since the legal heirs of the original owner have denied the fact of tenancy of the father of the plaintiff, only that Civil Court can decide the said issue. Hence this Court has jurisdiction to decide the present case. Hence issue of jurisdiction at this initial stage is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Now to come up for framing of issues on 15.07.2015 at Sarahan.” 6. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioners moved an application for placing on record certain documents and for passing appropriate orders and the documents were ordered to be taken on record vide order dated 28.05.2019 and it was further directed that the relevance of these documents would be taken into consideration at the time of final hearing of the petition. 7. 7. Now, in case, the documents are adverted to, it would be noticed that prior to filing of this suit the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/defendants had filed an application under Section 123 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act against the respondent/plaintiff on the allegations that the parties were co-sharer and, therefore, no longer interested to keep the suit land joint and the same be partitioned in accordance with law. It was averred that the parties were co-sharers and owner in possession of land, which forms the subject matter of this appeal and the same be partitioned in accordance with law. 8. The learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 09.07.2007 allowed the application. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub Division, Rajgarh, wherein he challenged the mode of partition on the following grounds:- “1. That the impugned orders do not show the application of mind by the learned lower court and are based on surmises and conjectures. 2. That the mode of partition prepared by the Ld. Lower court is wrong and has been prepared without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the Ld. Lower court has ot tried to procure any Fard Kabij on the suit property. 4. That the appellant was unheard despite his presence in the court and that the appellant and the respondents also have joint land in Khasra Nos. 39/1 and 45 in the same revenue village, which necessitates that partition of the entire property should be carried out instead of partial partition.” 10. The order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, was set aside only on the ground that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and consequently the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Pachhad to decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 11. However, it would be noticed that even while remanding the matter back the Collector Sub Division, Rajgarh specifically observed that the respondent herein could not bring on record any material, which may prove that he was co-owner with the defendant in the same mauja on other Khasra numbers also and that the application for partition would amount to effecting partial partition. 12. 12. It is not in dispute that thereafter the respondent voluntarily made a statement before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade to the effect that he wanted the land to be partitioned provided his possession is restored. It was on the basis of this statement that the mode of partition came to be drawn and had attained finality as far as revenue courts are concerned. However, thereafter, respondent appears to have got wiser with time and filed a suit out of which the present revision petition has arisen praying therein for grant of decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. 13. This time, the respondent instead of claiming himself to be the co-owner of the entire land claimed himself to be a non-occupancy tenant as would be evident from para-5 of the plaint, which reads as under:- “5. That in the month of 7th November, 2010, the defendant threatened the plaintiff that he will dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and also cause interference in the suit land. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit land being co-owner as he acquired the land comprised in Khasra No.s. 40, 42, Plots 2, total measuring 6 Bighas and 1 Biswa being successor of late Sh. Jalam Singh and vide mutation no. 47, dated 26.05.1966 in respect of gift deed to the extent of ½ share by Smt. Tulsa in favour of the plaintiff out of the total which was in her possession. Thereafter the plaintiff enquired about the revenue record and come to know that the entries in revenue record in respect of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 40, 42 Plots 2, total measuring 6 Bighas and 1 Biswa, which was in possession of the father of the plaintiff in capacity of ‘Gair Maurusi’ tenant had been deleted wrongly, illegally and without authority, order by the revenue authorities. The entries in jamabandi for the year of 1980-81 and subsequent entries in revenue record to that effect in respect of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 40, 42, Plots 2, total measuring 6 Bighas and 1Biswa, which not showing the possession of the father of the plaintiff in capacity of ‘Gair Maurusi’ tenant, are wrong, void, illegal and the same are not binding upon the rights, title or interest of the plaintiff in any manner. 40, 42, Plots 2, total measuring 6 Bighas and 1Biswa, which not showing the possession of the father of the plaintiff in capacity of ‘Gair Maurusi’ tenant, are wrong, void, illegal and the same are not binding upon the rights, title or interest of the plaintiff in any manner. The entries in jamabandi/revenue record, showing the defendant as owner in possession measuring 38 Bighas and 14 Biswas out of the suit land are wrong, void, illegal and inoperative and also not binding upon the rights, title or interest of the plaintiff in any manner and the same are being challenge by way of the suit for declaration.” 14. On the basis of such averments, the plaintiff/respondent claimed a decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 41 Bighas and 15 Biswas out of the suit land comprised Khata No. 3, Khasra Nos. 69/3, 4, 6, 12, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, Plots 19, total measuring 77 Bighas and 9 Biswas situated at revenue Village Nei Lothan, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, as per Jamabandi for the year 2005-06. He further sought declaration to the effect that subsequent entries made in the revenue record/jamabandi in respect of the suit land are wrong, illegal and void and inoperative and does not or cannot effect the accrued rights, title or interest of the plaintiff. Lastly, he sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from causing any interference in the suit land. 15. The suit was contested by the defendants/ petitioners, wherein preliminary objection regarding maintainability, jurisdiction and estoppel were raised. On merits, the entire claim of the plaintiff including the plea of tenancy was denied. It was claimed that the Jalam Singh was never inducted as a tenant by the co-owners. Moreover, the share of Tulsa was gifted to the plaintiff/respondent. 16. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it would be noticed that the plea raised before the Civil Court were never raised before the revenue courts, in the partition proceedings. Nowhere had the plaintiff/respondent claimed tenancy and, therefore, was precluded from raising this defence before the Civil Court in terms of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as under: “2. Suit to include the whole claim. Nowhere had the plaintiff/respondent claimed tenancy and, therefore, was precluded from raising this defence before the Civil Court in terms of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as under: “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 internationally 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 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. 18. This Rule is based on the principle that a party shall not be vexed twice for one of the same cause of action. The Rule also seeks to prevent two evils, one the splitting of claims and the other splitting of remedies. 19. If a party omits any portion of the claim or omit any of the remedy in respect of cause of action then such party shall not be permitted to pursue the omitted claim or the omitted remedy. The requirement of the Rule is that every suit should include the whole of the claim or defence with respect to the cause of action which gives occasion for and forms foundation of the plaint or the written statement. If the cause of action enables the parties for a larger and broader relief, than to which he had limited his claim, he cannot thereafter seek the recovery of the balance of the cause of action by independent proceedings. 20. If the cause of action enables the parties for a larger and broader relief, than to which he had limited his claim, he cannot thereafter seek the recovery of the balance of the cause of action by independent proceedings. 20. Order 2 of CPC deals with the frame of the suit and each party is supposed to include the whole of the claim which he is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. The principles laid down therein confers certain privileges in favour of the party, who brings the suit, but simultaneously it imposes an embargo or restriction in claiming/bringing another suit for any of the relief’s which he could have prayed in the earlier suit. The underlying principle of this provision is based on the principle that defendant may not be and should not be vexed twice for one of the same cause of action. 21. The law on the subject is well settled. I only need to refer to certain recent judgments on the point. 22. In State Bank of India vs. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2014) 3 SCC 595 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that when cause of action is the same, suit must include whole claim and plaintiff cannot split up claim so as to omit one part and sue for the other. 23. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 to 12 of the judgment, which read as under:- “8. The scope of the above-mentioned provisions came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. The earliest one dealt by the Privy Council was reported in Naba Kumar Hazra v. Radhashyam Mahish AIR 1931 PC 229 wherein the Privy Council held that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to draw the defendant to court twice for the same cause by splitting up the claim and suing, in the first instance, in respect of a part of claim only. In Sidramappa v. Rajashetty and Others (1970) 1 SCC 186 this Court held that if the cause of action on the basis of which the previous suit was brought, does not form the foundation of subsequent suit and in the earlier suit the plaintiff could not have claimed the relief which he sought in the subsequent suit, the latter, namely, the subsequent suit, will not be barred by the rule contained in Order 2 Rule 2, CPC. 9. 9. In Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal AIR 1964 SC 1810 the scope of the above-mentioned provision was further explained as under: “In order that a plea of a Bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code should succeed the defendant who raises the plea must make out; (i) that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (2) that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; (3) that being thus entitled to more than one relief the plaintiff, without leave obtained from the Court omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. From this analysis it would be seen that the defendant would have to establish primarily and to start with, the precise cause of action upon which the previous suit was filed, for unless there is identity between the cause of action on which the earlier suit was filed and that on which the claim in the latter suit is based there would be no scope for the application of the bar.” 10. In Sandeep Polymers (P) Ltd.’s case (supra), the above-mentioned principles were reiterated and this Court held as under : “Under Order 2 Rule 1 of the Code which contains provisions of mandatory nature, the requirement is that the plaintiffs are duty-bound to claim the entire relief. The suit has to be so framed as to afford ground for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. Rule 2 further enjoins on the plaintiff to include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. If the plaintiff omits to sue or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, it is not permissible for him to sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished afterwards. 11. The above-mentioned decisions categorically lay down the law that if a plaintiff is entitled to seek reliefs against the defendant in respect of the same cause of action, the plaintiff cannot split up the claim so as to omit one part to the claim and sue for the other. 11. The above-mentioned decisions categorically lay down the law that if a plaintiff is entitled to seek reliefs against the defendant in respect of the same cause of action, the plaintiff cannot split up the claim so as to omit one part to the claim and sue for the other. If the cause of action is same, the plaintiff has to place all his claims before the Court in one suit, as Order 2 Rule 2, CPC is based on the cardinal principle that defendant should not be vexed twice for the same cause. 12. Order 2 Rule 2, CPC, therefore, requires the unity of all claims based on the same cause of action in one suit, it does not contemplate unity of distinct and separate cause of action. On the above- mentioned legal principle, let us examine whether the High Court has correctly applied the legal principle in the instant case. 24. The Rule came up for consideration fairly recently before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parmod Kumar and another vs. Zalak Singh and others (2019) 6 SCC 621 , wherein it was observed that Order 2 Rule 2 manifests a technical rule as it has the effect of posing an obstacle in the path of a litigant ventilating his grievance in the Court but there is equally important principle that no person shall be vexed twice on the same cause of action. 25. It is apt to reproduce relevant observation, which reads as under:- 44. It is undoubtedly true that the law does not compel a litigant to combine one or more causes of action in a suit. It is open to a plaintiff, if he so wishes, however to combine more than one cause of action against same parties in one suit. However, it is undoubtedly true that the embargo in Order II Rule 2 will arise only if the claim, which is omitted or relinquished and the relief’s which are omitted and not claimed, arise from one cause of action. If there is more than one cause of action, Order II Rule 2 will not apply. It is undoubtedly also true that Order II Rule 2 manifests a technical rule as it has the effect of posing an obstacle in the path of a litigant ventilating his grievance in the Courts. If there is more than one cause of action, Order II Rule 2 will not apply. It is undoubtedly also true that Order II Rule 2 manifests a technical rule as it has the effect of posing an obstacle in the path of a litigant ventilating his grievance in the Courts. But as already noted, there is an equally important principle that no person shall be vexed twice on the same cause of action. 26. In addition to the aforesaid, the suit would be hit by the doctrine of election as admittedly the respondent had two or more co-existent remedy at the time of election, which were repugnant and inconsistent in a sense the partition proceedings before the revenue Court could have only been initiated, in case the parties including the plaintiff were co-owners. Once the plaintiff claimed himself to be co-owner alongwith the defendants, which possession was not even denied by the defendant, as he fully participated in the said proceedings that have now attained finality. Therefore, having elected and not chosen to question the title of the defendants as co-sharers, the plaintiffs cannot file the instant suit that too on the plea that instead of being co-owners of the entire property they are non-occupancy tenant over the same. Moreover, once a party accepts benefit under partition that too on the basis of his own statement he cannot later question the said partition. 27. Having adopted a particular defence before the revenue authorities, it was not open to the plaintiff/respondent to take up an entirely different stand in the Civil Court. 28. It is more than settled that clever drafting will not invest a court of jurisdiction which is otherwise does not possess. Therefore, in the given circumstances, mere fact that even relief of injunction was sought can be no ground to conclude that it was the civil court, who alone had jurisdiction in the given facts and circumstances. 29. Having said so, I find no difficulty in concluding that the suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent before the Civil Court was not at all maintainable. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and order passed by the learned Trial Court on 22.06.2015 is set aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is ordered to be dismissed.