OVII, Rr 11, 13, O II, Rr 1, 2, 3 and Section 11 Second case denial, application of Juditica, no law clause in the CPC, may impose a ban on another case, if the former Otherwise, the decision was made on the merits of Rule 13 of the CPC, expressly stating that the plaintiff's dismissal would have prevented the plaintiff from filing another case for the same reason. Will not, the combined effect was the combined effect of RR 11, 13 of O. VII, CPC. That the second case will be eligible for one reason, which, by no means, will not affect the rights of the defendant if it does not maintain a fact or law case, if another case is found. Unable to maintain it under the law, it had to be rejected after hearing the parties, which would end the dispute to the extent of O VII, R 11, CPC, as far as the request for O II, Rr 1, 2 and 3 Concerned, the CPC was concerned, the defendants were prevented from taking a contradictory or additional position, or claiming a reflex. In another case, theft was available in the first period of litigation. Went and was highlighted so that a new cause of action could be created, but no ground could be made for its application. The principle of race Judeta was applied in this case, creating a new cause of action
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2013
