As per case facts, the petitioners challenged the dismissal of their O.P. filed under the A.P.Societies Registration Act, 2001, which sought an inquiry, declaration, and injunction related to alleged fraudulent ... renewals of society registrations by respondents. The O.P. was dismissed by the trial court based on Order-IX, Rule-9 CPC, arguing that earlier O.P.s filed by the petitioner's husband on the same cause of action were withdrawn without leave. The petitioners contended that the cause of action for the current O.P. was distinct, arising from events after the earlier petitions were filed. The question arose whether the current O.P. was barred by principles of splitting claims, withdrawal of suits, or dismissal for non-appearance, given the previous litigation involving similar subject matter. Finally, the High Court determined that the cause of action for the present O.P. was indeed distinct, stemming from recent fraudulent renewals not existing when the prior O.P.s were filed. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the specified CPC provisions related to prior litigation were not applicable, allowing the revision petitions, setting aside the trial court's dismissal, and restoring the original petition for adjudication on its merits.