https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194110 A later suit was held not barred by res judicata or Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC because the earlier suit failed on a technical basis and the tenancy question had not been finally decided; the later claim arose from a distinct cause of action for wrongful dispossession and restoration of possession. The Court also held that, after the Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman & Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, tenancy and deemed tenancy questions fell within the Mamlatdar's exclusive domain, and the pending civil suit could not decide that issue on merits. The civil court had to have the tenancy question determined by the statutory forum and then proceed according to that result. en-us Wed, 07 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:43:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194110 A later suit was held not barred by res judicata or Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC because the earlier suit failed on a technical basis and the tenancy question had not been finally decided; the later claim arose from a distinct cause of action for wrongful dispossession and restoration of possession. The Court also held that, after the Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman & Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, tenancy and deemed tenancy questions fell within the Mamlatdar's exclusive domain, and the pending civil suit could not decide that issue on merits. The civil court had to have the tenancy question determined by the statutory forum and then proceed according to that result. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194110