The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 9 rule 8 and Order 9 rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to preclude the plaintiff from filing a subsequent suit on the same cause of action.

KRISHN KUMAR LAHOTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 3. 8. 2004 in Civil Suit no. 1-A/2003 by which the suit filed by Prakash Nath Chaturvedi, the predecessor of the appellants, was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff was precluded from filing such suit under Order 9 rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as `the Code' ).

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that:

(a) The cause of action for filing earlier suit was an order passed by the tehsildar in mutation proceedings while the cause of action for filing present suit arose on 17/18. 7. 2001 when the defendants 1,2and3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant no. 4. Because of this execution of the sale deed in favour of respondent no. 4, a fresh cause of action arose to the plaintiff for filing present suit. In these circumstances, the provision of Order 9 rule 9 of the Code were not applicable, the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants.

(b) Reliance was placed to the Supreme Court judgments in Suraj Ratan thirani vs. Azamabad Tea Co. Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 295 (para 30) State of U. P. Vs. Jagdish Sharan Agrawal (2009)1 SCC 689 and submitted that this appeal be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded back to the trial Court to decide it on merits.

( 3 ) SHRI A. K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, opposed the contention and submitted that cause of action is bundle of facts which have to be ascertained from the pleadings of the case. The contention of the appellant that earlier suit was filed because of order passed by the tehsildar in mutation proceedings, and subsequent suit was filed because of the sale deed executed by defendants 1,2 and 3 in favour of defendant no. 4 on 17. 7. 2001, is misconceived. The cause of action in the earlier suit was based on certain facts on the basis of which, the plaintiff sought relief of declaration of title and in the present case also, the plaintiff claimed declaration of the title on same set of facts, though new reliefs in respect of the sale deed dated 17. 7. 2001, possession over the property etc. were sought, but the fact remains that the earlier suit seeking declaration of the title was dismissed under Order 9 rule 8 of the Code and the plaintiff was precluded from filing a subsequent suit on the basis of same cause of action. The trial Court rightly dismissed the suit in view of specific provision under order 9 rule 9 of the Code in which there is no error. He had also placed reliance to the Apex Court judgment in Suraj Ratan Thirani (supra) and submitted that this appeal itself is liable to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in para 31 of the judgment of Suraj Ratan thirani (supra)

( 4 ) TO appreciate the contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate if the factual position in the present case is seen.

(a) The present suit was filed before the trial Court by Prakash Nath Chaturvedi ,who died during the pendency of this appeal. The same plaintiff Prakash Nath Chaturvedi earlier filed a suit before Additional Civil Judge Class-I,katni which was registered as Civil Suit no. 65-A/1991-92 claiming relief of declaration of title against Rajendra Kumar, Virendra kumar, Surendra Kumar and Smt. Laxmi Devi Wd/o Kedar Prasad Agrawal. In the earlier plaint, the plaintiff specifically pleaded in paras 2,3 and 4 that he was the owner of land s. No. 1126/1 area 1. 586 hectares of village Mudwara. In para 5 of the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that though he was the owner of the property, but the defendants got their names recorded in the revenue record. The plaintiff moved an application before the tehsildar for recording his name in the revenue record, but the Tehsildar rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff may get his title declared from the Civil Court. Thereafter the suit was filed for such relief. In par