https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218352 Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bars a later proceeding only where it is founded on the same cause of action as the earlier suit and a relief on that very cause of action was omitted. Here, the earlier foreign suit arose from banking facilities and a continuing guarantee, while the recovery application was based on dishonour and non-payment of a specific accepted bill of exchange. Because an accepted bill creates an independent contract and the acceptor becomes primarily liable, the overlapping amount did not make the causes of action identical. Section 22 of the 1993 Act did not exclude Order 2 Rule 2. The later recovery application was therefore not barred and had to be decided on merits. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218352 Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bars a later proceeding only where it is founded on the same cause of action as the earlier suit and a relief on that very cause of action was omitted. Here, the earlier foreign suit arose from banking facilities and a continuing guarantee, while the recovery application was based on dishonour and non-payment of a specific accepted bill of exchange. Because an accepted bill creates an independent contract and the acceptor becomes primarily liable, the overlapping amount did not make the causes of action identical. Section 22 of the 1993 Act did not exclude Order 2 Rule 2. The later recovery application was therefore not barred and had to be decided on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218352