Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bar applies only on the same cause of action; later ejectment suit survived with leave.

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bars a later suit only when it is founded on the same cause of action as an earlier suit and an omitted relief could have been claimed then without leave. Order 2 Rule 4 CPC governs joinder of claims in suits for recovery of immovable property, but it does not create a universal rule that ejectment and mesne profits or arrears of rent always arise from distinct causes of action. In a landlord-tenant dispute based on a lease, the tenancy determination and the tenant's failure to vacate may provide a common factual foundation for both reliefs. Where leave was obtained to sue later, the subsequent ejectment suit was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsequent suit for ejectment was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether Order 2, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure treated the claim for ejectment and the claim for mesne profits or arrears of rent as necessarily arising from distinct causes of action.

Analysis: The bar under Order 2, Rule 2 operates where the later suit is founded on the same cause of action as the former suit and a relief which could have been claimed earlier is omitted without leave. Order 2, Rule 4 regulates joinder of claims with a suit for recovery of immovable property and does not create a universal rule that claims for possession and mesne profits or arrears of rent are always based on separate causes of action. Whether the causes of action are the same or distinct depends on the facts of the case. In a landlord-tenant dispute based on a lease, the determination of tenancy and the tenant's failure to vacate furnished the common factual foundation for both the claim for mesne profits and the claim for ejectment. Since leave of the court had been obtained to omit the ejectment relief from the earlier suit and sue later, the subsequent suit was not hit by Order 2, Rule 2.

Conclusion: The subsequent suit for ejectment was maintainable and was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure because leave of the court had been granted to bring that relief in a later suit.

---