1. In this second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs, the following substantial question of law arises for consideration:

Whether dismissal of suit for partition in default under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure would bar the subsequent suit for partition?

2. For answering the aforesaid substantial question of law, it would be necessary to refer to certain relevant facts. The suit property is half portion of House No.509 situated at the main road, Sitabuldi Nagpur. The predecessor of the plaintiffs Rambhau entered in to an agreement to purchase the suit property with one Tarachand on 27-1-1968. Tarachand was the joint owner of the suit house along with his brother Rajaram. As Tarachand did not execute the sale deed, Rambhau had filed R.C.S. No.132 of 1970 and this suit for specific performance was decreed on 28-6-1971. This decree was executed and on 6-9-1975, a sale deed for the aforesaid property was executed in favour of Rambhau. As the suit premises was in possession of a tenant Premnath, Rambhau filed R.C.S. No.132/1976 for his ejectment. This suit was decreed on 27-2-1981. The tenant Premnath challenged this decree and his appeal came to be allowed.