ARUN TANDON, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. K. Singh, holding brief of Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. ( 2 ) ORIGINAL Suit No. 471 of 1980 was filed by four petitioners, namely-Lal Bahadur Yadav, bajrangi Yadav, Maheep Yadav and Shiv Nath Yadav against seven respondents, namely- Udai raj, Brijraj Yadav, Ramratan Yadav, Ramjatan Yadav, Shivjatan Yadav, Rampejan and harendra. The reliefs prayed for in the said suit, read as follows: " (a) Adalat say bajariya degree hukm Imtahal dwami prativadigan ko agya di jai ki ve kabja dakhal ham vadlgan par zameen nijai mal usper isthit chijon ke mana va muzahim na ho aur na uspar kisi prakar ka swatwa kayam karan aur na apney makan ka kol darwaja iss zameen per kayam karan sur no usse kisi prakar id amdaraft karen mallyat dsdarol Moo. 200/- hal kyonki mallyat ka 1/5 Moo. 200/- say kam hal. (b) Yahki agar dauran mukadma main pratiwadigan kisi prakar ka koi nirman karney ya koi todfod karan to uss soorat main bajriya hukm imtenal prativadigan ko hukm diya jai ki andar miyad mooina adalat apna nirman yas anya karya ko hatakar zameen ko khali kar bahalst assll kar deven, Agar Adalatal Agar Adalat ki agya ka ullanghan karen to bajriya ahalkar adalat tamila degree basrapa prativadigan kar diya jaya. Mallyat dadral haza Moo. 200/- kayam ki gal hia. Kyonki allyat zameen ka 1/5 Moo. 200/- kayam ki gal hia. Kyonki mallyat zameen ka 1/5 moo. 200/- say kam hal. (c) Yahki kisi karan sey zameen nizal say vadigan Li badkhali sanbit ho to use surat main degree dakhal bal bahak vadign virudh prativadigan sadeer parmal jevey. Dardarsi haza ka mulyankan Moo. 200/- malkiyat zameen va uss per isthit chijon key hain. (d) Kool kharch mukadma zimma prativadigan ayadkiya jave. (e) Ooprokat dadarsi hai ke alava ya bajey kisi anya dadarsi ke vadigan najdik rai adalat adhikari ho to ata pharmal numbaran 7/- 030, 8/-010, 9-032, Ajruya Batvara San 1917 Isvi babat Mauza Ghanghata, Paragana-Autrualiya, Zila Azamgarh mal uspar isthit chijon key hain. " ( 3 ) THE said suit was dismissed in default on 21. 10. 1981. (e) Ooprokat dadarsi hai ke alava ya bajey kisi anya dadarsi ke vadigan najdik rai adalat adhikari ho to ata pharmal numbaran 7/- 030, 8/-010, 9-032, Ajruya Batvara San 1917 Isvi babat Mauza Ghanghata, Paragana-Autrualiya, Zila Azamgarh mal uspar isthit chijon key hain. " ( 3 ) THE said suit was dismissed in default on 21. 10. 1981. An application was filed for recall of the order dated 21st October, 1981, dismissing the suit, was also dismissed. Against the said order, a revision was filed, which was also dismissed. In such circumstances, the order dismissing the suit became final between the parties. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY Original suit No. 99 of 1984 was filed by the plaintiffs of Suit No. 471 of 1980 along with one Sri Lagan Yadav, S/o Sri Dalijeet Yadav against the same defendants, who were parties of Suit No. 471 of 1980. Reliefs prayed for, in the subsequent suit, read as follows: " (a) Yah ki nayalaya say prativadigan ke virudh adesh ish visay ka parit kiya jave ki prativad ashriyaya shikayti aj kisam nand khuntariat chchappar ko vivadit bhumi say akshar A. B. C. D. , say nayalaya dwara nirdharit vivad ke andar hatakar ya darwata mizal band karka zameen bahalat ashil kar deva, basurat kashir rahney tamila degree zariya ahalkar adalat pratiyadigan ke kharchon sa kara diya jaye, Tayun ish dadarshi ka vastey adhikar sunval Moo. 1000 rupya ya aday rasamy Moo, 200 rupya hai. (b) Yah ki nayalaya se prativadigan ke virudh asthal nishedhagayan ish visay ki parit ki jave ki vey kabje dakhal vadigan upar vivadit bhumi va ushmay isthit vadigan ki chijon par mana muzahim na hon, na darwaja nizal se vivadit bhumi main bamdaraft karan. Tabun is dadarshi ka dstey adhikar smapt moo. 1000 rupaya bakdar maphit vivadit bhumio va ushmey isthi chijon ke hain thath vastey aday rasum malkiyat ka 1/5 Moo. 200/- rupaya hi. (c) Yah ki yadi vivadit bhumi ka kisi aaj say babakhall vadigan karar paveyn to uss par dakai bhi dikhaya jave, tagun is dadarshi ka Moo. 10 rupya bakdar baliyat vivadit bhumi hai. (d) Yad ki kook kharch ginka prativadigan aayad kiya jave. 200/- rupaya hi. (c) Yah ki yadi vivadit bhumi ka kisi aaj say babakhall vadigan karar paveyn to uss par dakai bhi dikhaya jave, tagun is dadarshi ka Moo. 10 rupya bakdar baliyat vivadit bhumi hai. (d) Yad ki kook kharch ginka prativadigan aayad kiya jave. " ( 5 ) BEFORE the trial Court objection was filed on behalf of the defendants stating therein that the subsequent suit was barred by the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code ). On the said objections, issue No. 3 was framed by the trial court. The trial court decided the issue No. 3 in favour of the defendants on 4th January, 1988 and held that the subsequent Suit No. 99 of 1984 was barred by the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code. Against the said order of the trial court dated 4th January, 1988, the plaintiff filed a revision, being Civil Revision No. 8 of 1988. By means of the order dated 29th November, 1988, the learned In Additional District Judge, Azamgarh has allowed the said revision and has held that the subsequent Suit No. 99 of 1984 was not barred by the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records of the writ petition, I find that there is no dispute between the parties about the facts. The Revisional Court had set aside the order of the trail court dated 4th January, 1988 and after recording following findings namely; (a) that the relief prayed for in the plaint of Suit No. 471 of 1980 was different vis--vis the relief prayed for in the plaint of Suit No. 99 of 1984, and (b) that Sri Lagan Yadav was the party to the earlier suit proceedings. ( 7 ) AFTER recording the aforesaid findings of fact the revisional court came to the conclusion that the subsequent suit was not barred by the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code. ( 8 ) THE finding recorded by the revisional court with regards to the relief prayed for in two suits being different, is based on misreading of the plaint, the reliefs prayed for in two suits, quoted hereinabove. ( 8 ) THE finding recorded by the revisional court with regards to the relief prayed for in two suits being different, is based on misreading of the plaint, the reliefs prayed for in two suits, quoted hereinabove. It is apparent that in first suit, being Suit No. 471 of 1980, there is a specific prayer that if constructions are raised by the defendants during the course of the suit proceedings, the same may be removed, so that the defendants do not interfere with the right of the plaintiffs in any manner. The relief prayed for in the subsequent suit was more or less the same. It was prayed that the construction may be removed and defendants be dispossessed from the suit property if they are found in possession of any part thereof. The prayer in the suits remains the same except for consequential reliefs the findings of the revisional court, that there was difference in the reliefs prayed for in the two suits is totally unjustified and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The relief prayed for is more or less identical. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, the findings recorded by the revisional court in two suits, being different, cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The other findings recorded by the revisional court to the effect that Sri Lagan Yadav, being not a party to the earlier suit; provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code would not apply, is legally correct. Order IX Rule 9 reads as follows: "degree 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 cots or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceedings with the suit. (2) No order shall be made under this Rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party. (2) No order shall be made under this Rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party. Restoration application and sufficient cause-Restoration of suit dismissed for default should not ordinarily be denied unless the applicant is found guilty of contumacious negligence or willful default. Sudden illness is sufficient cause. Similarly when an appeal is dismissed for default, the appeal is generally restored to file unless the appellant suffers from gross negligence. At least a party in appeal should not suffer for the negligence of the lawyer. No fresh Vakalatnama or power of attorney is necessary for proceedings for restoration of suit. " ( 10 ) IT is necessary that the plaintiffs in two suits must be same. The work plaintiff has been explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1965 SUPREME court 295 (V 52 C 53) (Suraj Rattan Thirani and Ors. v. Azamabad Tea Co. Ltd. and Ors.) to include the legal assignees and legal representatives. Thus, only the persons claiming through the plaintiffs as legal assignees or representatives for the purpose of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code in the subsequent suit would be covered. From the plaint, allegations of the second Suit No. 99 of 1984, it is established that Sri Lagan Yadav had not claimed right or title on the basis of his being legal representative or legal assignee of the plaintiff of the first suit. The right claimed by sri Lagan Yadav is based on independent right claimed by him. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code could not be attracted and it cannot be said that the suit, as filed by Sri Lagan Yadav, was barred by the provisions of order IX Rule 9. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts except for Sri Lagan, the other plaintiffs No. 2 to 4, namely, Sri lal Bahadur Yadav, Sri Bajrangi Yadav, Sri Maheep Yadav and Sri Shiv Nath Yadav, who were plaintiff in Suit No. 471 of 1980, could have not filed the subsequent Suit No. 99 of 1984 as the same is barred by the provisions of the Order IX Rule 9 of the Code. ( 13 ) IN such circumstances, the order passed by the revisional court dated 29th November, 1988 is set aside to the extent that the suit as filed by the plaintiffs, namely- Lal Bahadur Yadav, Sri bajrangi Yadav, Sri Maheep Yadav and Sir Shiv Nath Yadav, is barred by the provisions of order IX Rule 9 of the Code. Accordingly, it is directed that the suit as field by the aforesaid plaintiffs against the defendants stands dismissed. However, the subsequent suit will proceed only on behalf of the plaintiff, namely- Sri Lagan Yadav. Since the suit is pending before the trial court since 1984, it is directed that the said suit may be decided by the trail court in accordance with law at the earliest possible, preferably within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It is needless to point out that unnecessary adjournments shall be granted by the trial court to any of the parties. ( 14 ) IN view of the above observations, this petition is partly allowed. . .