JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J.:— This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who are respondents here to recover profits due to them on account of the years 1302, 1303 and 1304 Fasli. There were three defendants to the suit, namely, the present appellant Sita Ram, and two others, Dambar Singh and Balmakund. A portion of the claim was decreed by the Assistant Collector against Sita Ram alone. Both parties appealed. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed Sita Ram's appeal and partially allowed the plaintiff's. Sita Ram comes here in second appeal. 2. The only plea urged before us is that the suit against the appellant is barred as regards the claim for the years 1302 and 1303 Fasli in consequence of an order passed by an Assistant Collector on the 4th of June, 1897. It appears that in a previous suit the present plaintiffs claimed against the same three defendants profits for the years 1301, 1302, and 1303 Fasli. One of the defendants, Balmakund, was not served. The Assistant Collector gave the plaintiff two days within which to give correct particulars of his address. On the plaintiff failing to do so the suit was dismissed, not only as against Balmakund, but as against the other defendants who had been served. The plaintiffs applied for a review of that order, but their application was rejected. The only question we have to consider now is whether that order can be held to bar the present suit against Sita Ram as regards the profits of 1302 and 1303 Fasli. The case was once before this Court in an appeal from an order of remand. Dambar Singh was the only appellant in that case. 3. The learned vakil for the appellant relies on a remark made in the judgment in that case to the effect that the order of the Assistant Collector passed in 1897, had become final as regards Sita Ram and Dambar. A perusal of the whole of the judgment shows clearly that this remark was merely obiter. 3. The learned vakil for the appellant relies on a remark made in the judgment in that case to the effect that the order of the Assistant Collector passed in 1897, had become final as regards Sita Ram and Dambar. A perusal of the whole of the judgment shows clearly that this remark was merely obiter. Later on in the judgment the following passage occurs, “Against this order i.e., (the order of remand) one of the respondents, Kunwar Dambar Singh alone appeals, and we must be understood as considering his case alone.” I am of opinion that what took place in 1897 cannot bar the present suit against Sita Ram, to recover the profits of 1302 and 1303 Fasli. It is perfectly clear that the provisions of section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply, and the learned vakil for the appellant has not been able to refer us to any other statutory bar to the suit. The previous suit was dismissed owing to a failure of the plaintiff to cause one of the defendants to be summoned. No doubt, the dismissal of the suit against Sita Ram and Dambar was not warranted by any provision of law, but at the same time there was no decision whatever on the merits, and we consider that the principles embodied in section 99(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, (there being no provision of the Rent Act directly applicable), should govern this case, and that it was open to the plaintiffs, subject to the law of limitation, to bring this fresh suit. 4. The above was the only plea urged before us and in my opinion it fails. I would therefore dismiss this appeal with costs. STANLEY, C.J.:— I concur in the proposed order. KNOX, J.:— The order in the former suit between the present parties, in which the question in issue in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was directly a substantial issue, has not been produced. At any rate it has not been shown to us as being upon the record. The question was not heard and finally decided and we have not been shown any other provision which would bar the bringing of a fresh suit by the respondents. I therefore concur in the order proposed. 5. BY THE COURT.:— The order of the Court is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.