https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286733 The court found that the suit for specific performance was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC due to the appellant's failure to include this claim in a previous suit for permanent injunction. Despite the differences in the cause of action between the two suits, the court held that the claims in the earlier injunction suit aligned more with frustrating the agreement to sell, thus barring the subsequent suit for specific performance. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree, and directed the suit to proceed to trial on other issues, clarifying the impact on the respondent's suit for ejectment and the applicability of lis pendens. en-us Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:14:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286733 The court found that the suit for specific performance was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC due to the appellant's failure to include this claim in a previous suit for permanent injunction. Despite the differences in the cause of action between the two suits, the court held that the claims in the earlier injunction suit aligned more with frustrating the agreement to sell, thus barring the subsequent suit for specific performance. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree, and directed the suit to proceed to trial on other issues, clarifying the impact on the respondent's suit for ejectment and the applicability of lis pendens. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286733