https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292874 Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars a later suit only when both proceedings arise from the same cause of action and the plaintiff omitted an available relief without leave; here, the earlier suit for declaration and injunction was held distinct from the later suit for recovery of possession after dispossession, so the bar did not apply and possession relief stood affirmed. The claim for compensation for improvements under Section 2(d) of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 required fresh factual scrutiny because entitlement depends on the claimant's status and on bona fide belief in the right to make improvements at the relevant time. That issue was remitted for fresh adjudication. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292874 Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars a later suit only when both proceedings arise from the same cause of action and the plaintiff omitted an available relief without leave; here, the earlier suit for declaration and injunction was held distinct from the later suit for recovery of possession after dispossession, so the bar did not apply and possession relief stood affirmed. The claim for compensation for improvements under Section 2(d) of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 required fresh factual scrutiny because entitlement depends on the claimant's status and on bona fide belief in the right to make improvements at the relevant time. That issue was remitted for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292874