https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358568 The Supreme Court of India explained that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not bar a later suit for specific performance where the earlier suit was only for permanent injunction, because the two claims arise from distinct causes of action and involve different factual ingredients. It further held that withdrawal of the earlier suit could still permit a fresh suit when the withdrawal statement and order showed that the plaintiff was withdrawing to pursue appropriate relief before the competent forum, even without an express liberty clause. The suit for specific performance was therefore maintainable, the objection under Order 7 Rule 11 failed, and the matter was restored for trial on merits. en-us Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358568 The Supreme Court of India explained that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not bar a later suit for specific performance where the earlier suit was only for permanent injunction, because the two claims arise from distinct causes of action and involve different factual ingredients. It further held that withdrawal of the earlier suit could still permit a fresh suit when the withdrawal statement and order showed that the plaintiff was withdrawing to pursue appropriate relief before the competent forum, even without an express liberty clause. The suit for specific performance was therefore maintainable, the objection under Order 7 Rule 11 failed, and the matter was restored for trial on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358568