Krishnan, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before us. Their suit has been dismissed by the Lower Courts in limine without being tried on the merits on the ground that it is barred by Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code by reason of the order in the prior suit C. S. No. 494 of 1918, brought by them against practically the same defendants regarding the same properties, dismissing it for default under Rule 8. The Lower Courts have held that the cause of action for the two suits is one and the same. The learned Vakil for the appellants contends that they were wrong in so holding.

2. In considering the applicability of Rule 9 it must be carefully kept in view that it has not the effect of res judicata for there is no adjudication on any of the issues in the first case. This is pointed cut by the Privy Council in Chand Kour v. Partap Singh. (1888) I.L.R. 16 C. 98 The rule merely bars a second suit on the same cause of action. In that case their Lordships observe "The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It, refers entirely to the g