In Brief
A property company sought to prevent a buyer from filing a second suit claiming specific performance of a sale agreement. The buyer had first sued for injunction to protect possession after discovering the seller had transferred the property to another buyer. Later, the buyer filed a second suit seeking specific performance and declaration that the second sale was void. The Supreme Court held the second suit was not barred by civil procedure rules on duplicate suits because the two suits rested on distinct causes of action. The first suit protected against imminent dispossession; the second sought to enforce the original contract. Critically, specific performance was legally impossible at the time of the first suit due to a government ban on property transfers in that area, later quashed by the High Court. When a relief becomes available only after a subsequent legal event removes an impediment, courts should not apply technical bars that would deprive the plaintiff of all remedies.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.