Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The petition was called out and after hearing the counsel for the respondents it was ordered to be dismissed. Lateron Sri S.K.Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioner appeared and insisted for being heard. In the interest of justice, counsel for both the parties were reheard.

2. The order dated 22.10.2008 rejects the application of the petitioners (Paper No. 27-Ga) whereby they have contended that the suit of the respondent No. 4 (Original Suit No. 255 of 2001) is not maintainable as his earlier Original Suit No. 111 of 1995 to the same effect was dismissed in default.

3. The Court of first instance rejected the above application holding that the cause of action in both the suits are distinct. The order has been affirmed in revision.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that suit is barred by order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. as well as Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.

5. Order 9 Rule 9 precludes a person from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action on which his earlier suit is wholly or partly dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 8 of Order 9 C.P.C.

6. A plain reading of Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. reveals that “same cause of action” plays a vital role for