ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that appellants herein filed the Civil Suit No. 326 of 2021 before the High Court of Madras seeking the following prayers:

"a) to declare that the 1st Plaintiffs is the absolute owner of Suit B Schedule Property;

b) to declare the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of Suit C Schedule Property and direct the Defendants 7,9,10,11 & 16 to hand over and deliver vacant possession of the Suit C Schedule Property to the plaintiffs;

c) to declare the Decree passed in O.S.No.4747 of 1977 on 12.09.2007 by the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, does not pertain and bind to the Properties comprised in T.S.No.71/1, morefully described in the Schedule A comprised of B & C hereunder;

d) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/s, their men, agents, servants representatives or any one claiming through him/her/them or in trust for him/her/them, from in any manner distributing plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule B & C Property;

e) for the costs of the suit; and

f) to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.'

3. The respondents herein filed an Application No. 4115 of 2021 in C.S. No.326 of 2021 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') on the ground that the issues involved are already decided in earlier rounds of litigation and the suit is therefore barred by res judicata. By order dated 23.03.2022, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said application filed by the respondents on the ground that under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to only look into the averments in the plaint and not the defence taken by the defendants. The High Court observed that since the plaint discloses a cause of action, it dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court by filing OSA No.230 of 2022. By impugned order dated 28.09.2022, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereby, the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was allowed, on the ground that the property claimed by the appellants was already decided in earlier rounds of litigation and the decree obtained in the earlier round of litigation had attained finality. Hence, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Application No.4115/2021 in CS No.326/2021.

7. She submitted that the application filed by the defendant(s) for seeking rejection of the plaint was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, in the original side appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the said order and consequently, the plaint filed by the appellant(s) herein has been rejected on that ground that it is barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for the reason that the plaint is hit by the principle of res judicata.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that if the principle of res judicata was to apply to the plaint and consequently, the suit was not maintainable, then it was necessary that evidence be let