https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294878 The SC applied Order II Rule 2 CPC to hold that a later suit is barred where the omitted relief arises from the same cause of action as an earlier suit. On the pleadings, both suits stemmed from substantially identical facts, involving alienations by the same vendor in favour of the same defendants from the same property. A different date on the second sale deed, or a different limitation period, did not create a distinct cause of action. Although Order II Rule 3 permits joinder of causes of action, it does not override the bar under Order II Rule 2 when the omitted claim should have been included earlier. The subsequent suit was therefore barred and the contrary view was erroneous. en-us Fri, 10 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 May 2021 08:04:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294878 The SC applied Order II Rule 2 CPC to hold that a later suit is barred where the omitted relief arises from the same cause of action as an earlier suit. On the pleadings, both suits stemmed from substantially identical facts, involving alienations by the same vendor in favour of the same defendants from the same property. A different date on the second sale deed, or a different limitation period, did not create a distinct cause of action. Although Order II Rule 3 permits joinder of causes of action, it does not override the bar under Order II Rule 2 when the omitted claim should have been included earlier. The subsequent suit was therefore barred and the contrary view was erroneous. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294878