Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Jaffar Naiyyar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The pleadings exchanged between the parties have been perused and with the agreement of the parties, the petition is being finally decided.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the judgment and order dated 7.1.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby he has set aside the order dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Court of first instance rejecting applications 53C in original suit No. 544 of 2010 and has allowed the Civil Revision No. 39 of 2011.

4. The petitioner instituted original suit No. 544 of 2010 for a decree of permanent injunction. In the said suit respondents moved application 53C for rejecting the plaint as barred by Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. on the allegation that the petitioner had earlier filed original suit No. 586 of 2007, Nirmla Devi v. State of U.P. and another, which was dismissed in default on 18.11.2009. The aforesaid application of the respondents was rejected by the Court of first instance but in revision the said order has been set aside. Accordingly, petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

5. The only question which surfaces for consideration in this petition is whether the present suit No. 544 of 2010 instituted by the petitioner is barred by Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. in view of dismissal of the earlier suit No. 586 of 2007.

6. In an attempt to answer the above question it is considered necessary to have a look upon Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. and the plaints of the two suits.

Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. reads as under :

“Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.—(1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

(2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.”

7. It provides that where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed for want of prosecution, the petitioner shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of “the same cause of action.”

8. In other words, a same plaintiff cannot institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action on which his earlier suit had been dismissed in default.

9. A plain and simple reading of the above provision reveals that the most relevant and important part in applying the above provision is “the same cause of action”. It is only if the two suits are based on the same cause of action that a subsequent suit would be barred by Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C.

10. The Court of first instance after perusing the two plaints of the suits have come to the conclusion that the cause of action for the two suits are different, even the parties to the suit are at variance and the relief claimed in the two suits are also not the same.

11. The revisional Court while setting aside the judgment and order of the Court below has recorded a finding that in both the suits parties are almost same inasmuch as all the parties though slightly different, are instrumentalities of the State. Secondly, subject-matter of both the suits happens to be substantially the same and the cause of action also appears to be identical.

12. A bare perusal of the plaint of original suit No. 586 of 2007 would reveal that the aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner arraying the State of U.P. through Collector, Mainpuri and Gram Pradhan, Gram Sabha village Jagrooppur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Mainpuri for a decree of permanent injunctio