https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279285 A later suit for recovery of the Shahjahanpur property was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC because it arose from the same substantive cause of action as the earlier Oudh suit. The controlling test was the bundle of essential facts needed to prove the right, not the form of relief or the defendant's defence. Both suits depended on the same title facts: the ownership of Rani Barkatunnissa, her death, her Sunni faith, and the plaintiffs' heirship under Muhammadan law. The omission of the property from the original claim was not cured by the failed amendment attempt, so the omitted claim could not be pursued separately. en-us Mon, 31 May 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:21:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279285 A later suit for recovery of the Shahjahanpur property was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC because it arose from the same substantive cause of action as the earlier Oudh suit. The controlling test was the bundle of essential facts needed to prove the right, not the form of relief or the defendant's defence. Both suits depended on the same title facts: the ownership of Rani Barkatunnissa, her death, her Sunni faith, and the plaintiffs' heirship under Muhammadan law. The omission of the property from the original claim was not cured by the failed amendment attempt, so the omitted claim could not be pursued separately. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 May 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279285