Amit B. Borkar DECISION
Amit B. Borkar, J.
1. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 13 February 2018 passed by the City Civil Court refusing to grant leave under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') to institute suit for damages.
2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed SC Suit No.2360 of 2015, claiming relief of declaration and injunction. The declaration sought was in relation to a report prepared for defendant Nos.1 and 3. A consequential injunction was also sought restraining defendant No.1 and any other person from using the said report. In the prayer clause, leave under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC was sought.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner applied to Order 2, Rule 2. The defendants objected to granting the leave. The Trial Court, by impugned order, rejected leave mainly on the ground that the application seeking leave was filed after registration of the suit and the relief sought in the proposed suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.
4. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present petition.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the reasons assigned for the rejection of the application are ex-facie contrary to the parameters laid down by the High Court. According to him, the reasons assigned were contrary to precedents laid down by this Court. He submitted that in the present writ petition, the petitioner had supplied reasons for not seeking relief of damages in the suit. Therefore, the said reasons need to be considered while granting leave to the petitioner.
6. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the defendants submitted that the Court had rightly rejected the application without reasons to justify leave. According to him, such reason needs to be stated in the application for invoking the power of the Court, and in the absence of such reason, the Appellate Court could not have allowed the application. Therefore, according to them, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application.
7. I have heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the pleadings. In my opinion, the application seeking leave does not contain any reason why the plaintiff is seeking leave to reserve the right to file the suit for damages.
8. The single Judge of this Court, in the case of Prakash Balaram Nichani vs. Mohandas Parshuram Ahuja reported in MANU/MH/1952/2008 : 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 475 has held that while considering whether leave under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC ought to be granted to the plaintiff or not, the Court is required to keep in mind the object of the legislature in enacting provisions of Order 2 Rule 1 also, which provides for bringing finality to the dispute and to prevent further litigation as far as practicable. The provisions in Order 2, Rule (3) for grant of leave is thus an exception to the general principle of law that multiplicity of suits should be avoided. It is a prayer for a concession from the Court. The grant of leave is thus at the discretion of the Court, and the Court will exercise such discretion with required caution and circumspection. The Court is to keep in mind the wastage of public time of Courts, which is more relevant in the present scenario in view of the large accumula........