https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312013 The court held that the plaintiff's second suit for ejectment was maintainable under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the plaintiff had obtained leave to file a subsequent suit. The court determined that the cause of action for possession and mesne profits could be the same or distinct, depending on the case facts. The leave granted in the first suit permitted the filing of the second suit for ejectment, thus not barred by Order 2, Rule 2. en-us Tue, 30 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312013 The court held that the plaintiff's second suit for ejectment was maintainable under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the plaintiff had obtained leave to file a subsequent suit. The court determined that the cause of action for possession and mesne profits could be the same or distinct, depending on the case facts. The leave granted in the first suit permitted the filing of the second suit for ejectment, thus not barred by Order 2, Rule 2. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312013