Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-non-applicants had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 23-A of 1968 in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Begamganj, on the allegations that the applicants-defendants along with others were threatening to cut and remove the crops sown by them on the lands in suit and, therefore, the Court be pleased to restrain them by a permanent injunction from entering upon the lands. While the suit was pending, the applicants-defendants forcibly took possession of the lands and removed the crops. The plaintiffs non-applicants then amended the plaint and sought relief of possession and mesne profits. The matter was listed for evidence on 29-3-1971. The non-applicants remained absent and the suit came to be dismissed under Order 9 rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The non-applicant's then moved an application under Order rule 9, C.P.C. for restoration of the suit. By order dated 26-2-1973 passed in miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 19 of 1971, this Court was pleased to dismiss that application. 3. Now the non-applicants filed the present suit for possession of the lands and mesne profits as might be within limitation. 4. The applicant-defendants raised a preliminary objection that no fresh suit could be entertained on the same cause of action in view of the express provision of Order 9 rule 9, C.P.C. The trial Court was of the opinion that the bar of Order 9 rule 9 C.P.C. was not attracted because the new suit was based on a different cause of action. Held : The trial Court was clearly in error in giving such a finding. The earlier suit, after it was amended, was one for possession of the very lands. The applicant-defendants, it was alleged, had dispossessed the non-applicants plaintiffs in March, 1968. The cause of action disclosed in the present suit is the same act of dispen-session in March, 1968. The cause of action for the relief of possession is initially the same as was disclosed in the earlier suit for similar relief. The being so, the earlier suit having been refused to be restored, no fresh suit could be entertained on the same cause of action. The relief of mesne profits is only consequential. If possession of the lands cannot be claimed, mesne profits can also not be claimed. 5. The being so, the earlier suit having been refused to be restored, no fresh suit could be entertained on the same cause of action. The relief of mesne profits is only consequential. If possession of the lands cannot be claimed, mesne profits can also not be claimed. 5. The trial Court has committed an error of jurisdiction in proceeding with the suit which was barred under Order 9 rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I allow the revision, set aside the order of the trial Court and dismiss the suit as barred under Order 9 rule 9, C.P.C. Revision allowed.