https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294857 For the purpose of Order XXIII, Rule 1, "subject-matter" was treated as the series of facts or transactions giving rise to the relief claimed. The earlier ejectment suit was based on an incomplete factual foundation because the notice to quit had not been served, so there was no complete cause of action. The later suit rested on a completed set of facts after valid service of notice to quit. As the two suits proceeded on different bundles of material facts, they were not the same subject-matter or cause of action, and withdrawal of the earlier suit without leave did not bar the later suit. en-us Thu, 01 Nov 1917 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294857 For the purpose of Order XXIII, Rule 1, "subject-matter" was treated as the series of facts or transactions giving rise to the relief claimed. The earlier ejectment suit was based on an incomplete factual foundation because the notice to quit had not been served, so there was no complete cause of action. The later suit rested on a completed set of facts after valid service of notice to quit. As the two suits proceeded on different bundles of material facts, they were not the same subject-matter or cause of action, and withdrawal of the earlier suit without leave did not bar the later suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Nov 1917 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294857