Order XXIII Rule 1 and separate causes of action: later ejectment suit not barred where notice to quit created a new factual basis.

For the purpose of Order XXIII, Rule 1, "subject-matter" was treated as the series of facts or transactions giving rise to the relief claimed. The earlier ejectment suit was based on an incomplete factual foundation because the notice to quit had not been served, so there was no complete cause of action. The later suit rested on a completed set of facts after valid service of notice to quit. As the two suits proceeded on different bundles of material facts, they were not the same subject-matter or cause of action, and withdrawal of the earlier suit without leave did not bar the later suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second suit for ejectment was barred by the withdrawal of the earlier suit without leave under Order XXIII, Rule 1, because both suits concerned the same subject-matter or cause of action.

Analysis: For the purpose of Order XXIII, Rule 1, "subject-matter" was treated as the series of acts or transactions giving rise to the relief claimed. The first suit rested on an incomplete factual basis because the necessary notice to quit had not been given, so there was then no complete cause of action. The later suit was founded on a completed set of facts after notice to quit had been duly served. The two suits therefore proceeded on different factual foundations and were not in respect of the same subject-matter. The distinction was equally decisive if "subject-matter" were understood as cause of action.

Conclusion: The second suit was not barred, the remand order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the earlier and later suits rest on different bundles of material facts, they are not the same subject-matter or cause of action for the purpose of Order XXIII, Rule 1, and withdrawal of the earlier suit without leave does not bar the later suit.

---