https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280982 A subsequent suit for damages was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC where the omitted relief arose from the same cause of action as the earlier suit and was available when that suit was filed. The court held that a plaintiff must claim the whole cause of action in one proceeding unless leave is obtained, and a later suit cannot split an existing claim into separate litigation when no fresh cause of action intervened. The plaint was therefore liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11, the appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the District Court's rejection of the plaint was restored. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 May 2019 17:52:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280982 A subsequent suit for damages was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC where the omitted relief arose from the same cause of action as the earlier suit and was available when that suit was filed. The court held that a plaintiff must claim the whole cause of action in one proceeding unless leave is obtained, and a later suit cannot split an existing claim into separate litigation when no fresh cause of action intervened. The plaint was therefore liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11, the appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the District Court's rejection of the plaint was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280982