Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bar requires the same cause of action; a later specific performance suit was not barred.

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bars a later suit only when it is founded on the same cause of action as the earlier suit and the omitted relief arose from that same factual basis. Mere identity of parties or property is not enough. Here, the earlier injunction suit rested on alleged threat of dispossession, while the later specific performance suit arose from the agreement to sell and the subsequent refusal to perform after disclosure of the housing board transfer. Because the two suits depended on different facts and evidentiary foundations, and no intentional relinquishment was shown, the subsequent suit was not barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsequent suit for specific performance was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The controlling test under Order 2 Rule 2 is whether the later suit is founded on the same cause of action as the earlier suit and whether the plaintiff had omitted to claim a relief that arose from that same cause of action. A plea of bar cannot succeed merely because the two suits relate to the same property or arise between the same parties; the causes of action and the factual foundations of the two suits must be identical in substance. The earlier suit was based on an alleged threat of dispossession and sought only injunction, whereas the later suit for specific performance was founded on the agreement to sell and the subsequent denial of performance after disclosure of the housing board transfer. The two suits required proof of different facts and different evidentiary foundations, and the later claim was not shown to have been intentionally relinquished in the earlier suit.

Conclusion: The subsequent suit was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---