JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against Jamia Hamdard Employees Union and against Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi, pleading (i) that the plaintiff is a deemed University recognized under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956; (ii) that the defendant no.1 is a registered Trade Union which has been indulging in the acts of dharnas and violence against the plaintiff University; (iii) that the plaintiff University does not recognize the defendant no.1 Union and the said issue is pending adjudication before the Registrar of Trade Union in terms of order dated 28th January, 2016 of this Court in Writ Petition No.6919/2015; (iv) that on 25th May, 2016 the purported Union members of the defendant no.1 coerced the entire non-teaching staff of the plaintiff University to join in the gathering around the various offices/departments/hospital of the plaintiff University, raising illegal demands; (v) that in the morning of 26th May, 2016 the Union members of the defendant no.1 again unlawfully assembled in the campus of the plaintiff University and forcefully locked the entire departments/offices and hospital of the plaintiff University, bringing the entire University to a standstill and started shouting slogans and using abusive language disrupting the functioning of the plaintiff University; (vi) that the purported Union members of the defendant no.1 also threatened female members of the non-teaching staff of the plaintiff if they did not join the defendant no.1 Union; (vii) that though the said illegal mob, after bringing the functioning of the plaintiff University to a standstill on 26th May, 2016, disbursed in the evening but again collected in the morning of 27th May, 2016 and detained and confined the Vice Chancellor and Registrar and other officials of the plaintiff University in the Administrative Block and did not allow the hospital/departments/offices of the plaintiff University to function; (viii) the defendant no.1 Union, in the past also had indulged in similar action, then also compelling the plaintiff University to approach the Court and in which proceeding vide order dated 7th April, 2015 the defendant no.1 Union was restrained from conducting any meeting of whatsoever nature within 100 meters from Gate No.3 of the plaintiff University; and, (ix) that the actions of the defendant no.1 Union on 25th, 26th and 27th, May, 2016 are in disobedience of the said order dated 7th April, 2015 amounting to contempt of the said order. 2. On the aforesaid pleas, the suit was instituted on 27th May, 2016 itself and came up first before the Court on the same date with the following reliefs in the plaint:- "(a) Grant a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, their representatives, members, office bearers, agents etc. restraining the Defendants and/or their agents, servants, assigns, representatives or any person acting at their behest from disrupting the peaceful functioning of the Plaintiff University by taking the law and order situation in their hands. (b) Grant a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, their representatives, members, office bearers, agents, etc. restraining the Defendants and/or their agents, servants, assigns, representatives or any person acting at their behest from obstructing the ingress/egress of the officials of the Plaintiff University in and around the administrative block/various departments/guest house/hospital/residence of the officials of the Plaintiff University. (c) Grant a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, their representatives, members, office bearers, agents, etc. restraining the Defendants and/or their agents, servants, assigns, representatives or any person acting on their behest from holding any dharnas, shouting slogans, gathering/assembling/collecting in any manner, in and around the administrative block/various departments/guest house/hospital/residence of the officials of the Plaintiff University, thereby obstructing the normal functioning of the administrative block/various departments/guest house/hospital/residence of the officials of the plaintiff University. (d) Grant a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, their representatives, members, office bearers, agents, etc. directing the Defendant No.2 to ensure that the Defendant No.1 Union (purported) do not disrupt the peaceful functioning of the Plaintiff University by holding any dharnas/demonstrations/gheraos/rallies/shouting slogans in the campus of the plaintiff University thereby blocking/obstruct the ingress/egress of the patients of HACC, officials of the Plaintiff University, visitors, employees, students, faculty members. (e) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 3. (e) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 3. The suit was entertained and vide ex-parte ad interim order the defendant no.1 Union and its members and associates were restrained from holding any demonstration/dharna within the Administrative Block as well as within and around the various departments/offices/hospital/guest house/residences of the officials of the plaintiff University, within the plaintiff's campus and the defendant no.2 was directed to ensure strict compliance of the order. It was however clarified that the members of the defendant no.1 Union may hold their peaceful demonstration, without causing any obstruction to the egress and ingress of anyone, at a distance of 100 mtrs. outside from Gate No.3 of the plaintiff University. 4. On 22nd August, 2016, the counsel for the defendant no.1 Union stated that the defendant no.1 Union was ready and willing to file an affidavit stating inter alia that it will not hold any demonstration/dharna within the plaintiff's campus and if at all, they shall hold the dharna at a distance of 100 mtrs. from Gate No.3 of the campus. Permitting the defendant no.1 Union to file such affidavit, order of disposal of the suit was deferred. 5. However, contrary to the aforesaid statement, the General Secretary of the defendant no.1 Union filed an affidavit inter alia stating that it was impractical to hold dharna/demonstration at a busy road like Mehrauli-Badarpur Road and the order dated 27th May, 2016 amounted to denying the fundamental rights of the defendant no.1 Union to hold meetings. Recording that the defendant no.1 Union, by the said action was in gross noncompliance of the statement made on 27th August, 2016, and burdening the defendant no.1 Union to pay costs, the suit on 8th September, 2016, was adjourned for framing of issues. 6. The defendant no.1 Union filed IA No.3412/2017 for a direction to the plaintiff University to book Hall No.1 of the Convention Centre within the campus of the plaintiff University to enable the defendant no.1 Union to hold its General Body Meeting therein. 6. The defendant no.1 Union filed IA No.3412/2017 for a direction to the plaintiff University to book Hall No.1 of the Convention Centre within the campus of the plaintiff University to enable the defendant no.1 Union to hold its General Body Meeting therein. Vide order dated 22nd March, 2017 the said application was dismissed inter alia observing that even the status of the defendant no.1 Union vis-a-vis the plaintiff University was still at large and the rights of the defendant no.1 Union were not known till then and the question was still at large and in the situation no permission sought could be given. 7. The defendant no.1 Union has contested the suit pleading, (i) the bar of Section 18 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 to the suit; (ii) the bar of Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on account of under valuation of the suit; (iii) pleading that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff University and in which the order dated 7th April, 2015 aforesaid was made, though initially instituted in this Court, on enhancement of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court stood transferred to the District Court and the reliefs claimed in the said previously instituted suit were the same as in the present suit and the plaintiff University did not have cause of action for the present suit; and (iv) pleading various illegalities committed by the plaintiff University qua the defendant no.1 Union and its members and denying that the defendant no.1 Union or its members were guilty of the acts pleaded. 8. Though the plaintiff University filed a replication to the written statement of the defendant no.1 Union but the need to advert thereto is not felt. 9. The counsel for the defendant no.2 SHO, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, though appearing from time to time has not filed any written statement. 10. On the pleadings aforesaid of the parties, on 11th July, 2017 the following issues were framed:- "(i) Whether the present suit is to be stayed under Section 10 CPC as the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit No. 909/2015 (before this Court) between the same parties now pending in the Saket Courts, New Delhi as CS No. 7704/2016? (OPD) (ii) Whether the present suit of permanent and mandatory injunction is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? (OPD) (ii) Whether the present suit of permanent and mandatory injunction is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? (OPD) (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed at page 17 and 18 of the plaint in the suit? (OPP) (iv) Relief." and with the consent of the counsels, Issues No.(i) & (ii) above ordered to be treated as preliminary issues and listed for hearing. 11. Ex-parte ad interim order dated 7th May, 2016 remains in force with the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of the CPC also pending consideration. 12. The counsels have been heard on the preliminary issues aforesaid. 13. The counsel for the defendant no.1 Union has argued, (i) that the parties to the earlier suit in which the order dated 7 th April, 2015 was made and is in force and the parties to this suit are the same; (ii) that the reliefs claimed in the two suits are the same; (iii) that the interim order dated 27th May, 2016 in this suit is also the same as the interim order dated 7th April, 2015 in the earlier suit; (iv) that the said interim orders impose a complete prohibition on the defendant no.1 Union to exercise its rights; (v) that the defendant no.1 Union as a Trade Union can always carry on its lawful activities within the campus; (vi) that though the defendant no.1 Union has been asking the plaintiff University for a hall to conduct its General Body Meeting and which the plaintiff University is obliged to provide but the plaintiff University has denied the same; (vii) that the plaintiff University in the plaint in this suit also has pleaded that the alleged actions of the defendants are in contempt of the order dated 7th April, 2015 in the earlier suit and once the plaintiff University has so pleaded, the plaintiff University has no cause of action for the present suit inasmuch as the remedy if any of the plaintiff University was to approach the Court in which previously instituted suit is pending, for action against defendant no.1 Union and its office bearers for violating the order of the Court; and, (viii) that the plaintiff University chose to institute this fresh suit in this Court instead of approaching the Court of the learned Additional District Judge; reliance is placed on ITC Hotels Ltd. Vs. ABP Pvt. Ltd, (2017) 161 DRJ 512 where I have dealt with Section 10 of the CPC in the context of a money recovery suit; order dated 17th November, 2009 in SLP (Civil) No.7997/2008 titled MKJ Developers Ltd. Vs. Greenacre Holdings Ltd. holding that the issues involved in the suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property and in another suit for partition were not the same and Section 10 of the CPC had no application; Lakhbir Singh Vs. Arun Kumar Khanna, (2014) 209 DLT 708 where I have held that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC seeks to avoid multiplicity of litigations on the same cause of action and the legislative intent behind the same would not stand fully subserved by holding that the provisions thereof will apply only if the first suit is disposed of and not in a situation where the second suit has been filed during the pendency of the first suit. 14. Per contra, the counsel for the plaintiff University has contended, (i) that the cause of action for the two suits are different and attention in this regard is drawn to para 14 of the plaint in the present suit and to para 24 of the plaint in the previously instituted suit; and, (ii) that the test to be applied for applicability of Section 10 of the CPC is whether the outcome of one suit will determine the outcome of other. Reliance is placed on ASPI Jal Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333 inter alia holding that each of the several grounds of eviction available to a landlord under the Provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 constitutes a separate cause of action. 15. I have considered the rival contentions. 16. There can possibly be no dispute that the cause of action for the two suits are different. Cause of action for the present suit, as per the averments in the plaint accrued to the plaintiff University against the defendant no.1 Union on 25th May, 2016 i.e. much after the institution of the previous suit on or about 7th April, 2015. I have also enquired from the counsel for the defendant no.1 Union, whether not a cause of action for a relief of injunction is a recurrent cause of action accruing again and again whenever there is a threat. 17. I have also enquired from the counsel for the defendant no.1 Union, whether not a cause of action for a relief of injunction is a recurrent cause of action accruing again and again whenever there is a threat. 17. The counsel for the defendant no.1 Union though agrees but contends, that since the order dated 7th April, 2015 restraining the defendant no.1 Union as aforesaid was "till further orders" and no further orders have been made till now and is still in force, there was no need for the plaintiff University to institute this separate suit and the plaintiff University ought to have approached the Court where the previously instituted suit was pending, for relief if any which the plaintiff University was entitled to. It is argued that the sole purpose of instituting this suit was to invoke jurisdiction of this Court instead of that of the Additional District Judge. 18. There is some merit in what the counsel for the defendant no.1 Union states but at the same time it cannot also be said that the present suit is barred. It is well-nigh possible that the plaintiff University, if had approached the Court of the Additional District Judge where the previously instituted suit was then pending, for the reliefs as claimed in this suit, the Court may have said that the same amounted to a fresh cause of action and the plaintiff University may take appropriate reliefs therefor. The plaintiff University, at that point of time, as per averments in the plaint, was under a great hurry since its functioning had been stopped for immediately preceding three days. In such circumstances no fault can be found with the plaintiff University in choosing to institute a fresh suit in this Court instead of taking a chance by making an application in the previously instituted suit. 19. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that when the defendant no.1 Union, in law is not entitled to do the acts to restrain it from doing which this suit has been filed and no argument also has been addressed whereon, such technicalities should not allow the suit to remain pending on the board of this Court. While framing the issues on 11th July, 2017 also, it was observed that after the decision of the preliminary issues the suit would be sent for recording of evidence, only if need arises. While framing the issues on 11th July, 2017 also, it was observed that after the decision of the preliminary issues the suit would be sent for recording of evidence, only if need arises. No need is found to arise to record evidence to adjudicate the claim of the plaintiff University in the suit. All that the plaintiff University is seeking to restrain the defendant no.1 Union from doing what the defendant no.1 Union in law is not entitled to do. It cannot be forgotten that the Courts are for doing justice and while dispensing justice cannot, on account of technicalities, defeat the main aim and objective for which the Courts have been constituted. There are large number of other deserving matters craving attention of this Court and once it is not in dispute that the defendant no.1 Union is not entitled to indulge in the acts from doing which it is sought to be restrained, the time of this Court should not be consumed as has been consumed for the last over three years in dealing with this case. 20. Faced therewith, the counsel for the defendant no.1 Union states that the distance from the Gate No.3 of the plaintiff University within which defendant no.1 Union has been restrained from holding peaceful demonstration by reduced from 100 mtrs. to 50 mtrs. It is also contended that direction be issued to the plaintiff University to permit the defendant no.1 Union to hold its lawful Trade Union activities within the campus of the plaintiff University. 21. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the defendant no.1 Union. The defendant no.1 Union has not placed before this Court any site plan and has not made any pleadings as to how the distance of 100 mtrs. which found mention even in the order dated 7th April, 2015 and which has been in force for the last over four years, is not proper. In the absence of any site plan to show that the distance ordered of 100 mtrs. being not workable and in the absence of any pleadings, I am not inclined to do so. which found mention even in the order dated 7th April, 2015 and which has been in force for the last over four years, is not proper. In the absence of any site plan to show that the distance ordered of 100 mtrs. being not workable and in the absence of any pleadings, I am not inclined to do so. Similarly, if the defendant no.1 Union has any claim for or right to carry on any activities and the plaintiff University prevents the defendant no.1 Union from doing so, it will be open to the defendant no.1 Union to take appropriate proceedings in this regard and in the absence of any pleas, no such direction can be issued and no rider to the injunction sought be imposed. 22. The suit thus succeeds. A decree is passed, A. In favour of the plaintiff University and against the defendant no.1 Union, of permanent injunction:- a. restraining the defendant no.1 Union, its representatives, members, office bearers, agents etc. from disrupting the peaceful functioning of the Plaintiff University by taking the law and order situation in their hands; b. restraining the defendant no.1 Union, its representatives, members, office bearers, agents etc. from obstructing the ingress/egress of the officials of the Plaintiff University in and around the administrative block/various departments/guest house/hospital/residence of the officials of the Plaintiff University; and, c. restraining the defendant no.1 Union, its representatives, members, office bearers, agents etc. from holding any dharnas, shouting slogans, gathering/assembling/collecting in any manner, in and around the administrative block/various departments/guest house/hospital/residence of the officials of the Plaintiff University, thereby obstructing the normal functioning of the administrative block/various departments/guest house/hospital/residence of the officials of the plaintiff University. d. however clarifing that the defendant no.1 Union shall be entitled to hold its peaceful demonstration, without causing any obstruction to the ingress/egress of anyone, at a distance of 100 mtrs. outside from Gate No.3 of the plaintiff University. B. In favour of plaintiff, of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant no.2 SHO, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar to, on complaint by the Registrar of the Plaintiff University of attempt to violate or violation of the aforesaid order, prevent defendant no.1 Union or its representatives, members etc. outside from Gate No.3 of the plaintiff University. B. In favour of plaintiff, of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant no.2 SHO, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar to, on complaint by the Registrar of the Plaintiff University of attempt to violate or violation of the aforesaid order, prevent defendant no.1 Union or its representatives, members etc. from disrupting the peaceful functioning of the Plaintiff University and/or from obstructing the ingress/egress of the officials of the Plaintiff University in and around the administrative block/various departments/guest house/hospital/residence of the officials of the Plaintiff University and from collecting in and around the administrative block/various departments/guest house/hospital/residence of the officials of the Plaintiff University thereby obstructing normal functioning of the administrative block/various departments/guest house/hospital/residence of the officials of the plaintiff University. C. The parties are however left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn up.