This appeal is preferred against the dismissal of OS No.1239/2003 by judgment dt. 30-11-2004 pursuant to the orders passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District dt. 30-11-2004 in IA INo.36/2004.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the above suit for declaration that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property i.e, agricultural land admeasuring Ac.20-29 guntas in S.No.293; Ac.20-12 guntas in S.No.294 and Ac.13-15 guntas in S.No.295 situate at Ravalkole village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On receipt of the summons, the defendants 1 to 5 filed IA No.36/2004 under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w 151 CPC to reject the plaint as barred by law contending that one Mallaiah as sole plaintiff filed OS No.150/96 against them and others for permanent injunction before the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal in respect of the very same property alleging that he purchased the said property by oral sale and claiming possession. He also pleaded that he perfected his title by prescription. Since Mallaiah who is common ancestor of the plaintiffs died and he did not seek declaration of title, the plaintiffs filed IA No.201/2003 for amendment of plaint seeking the relief of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. Defendants 1 to 5 herein denied title. The said IA was dismissed as barred by limitation. Against which, the plaintiffs carried the matter in revision to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CRP No.1597/2003, which was also dismissed holding that the relief claimed is barred by limitation. Therefore, the plaintiffs are disentitle to claim the said relief which is barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and is liable to be rejected. The plaintiffs opposed the said IA. The learned trial judge allowed IA holding that the present suit is barred by res judicata and estoppel by record observing that a reading of the averments made in the plaint discloses plaintiffs earlier filed suit before the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants and in which injunction obtained by them in IA No.609/96 has been vacated on appeal and their filing IA No.201/2003 for amendment of the plaint to seek declaration of title was dismissed and its dismissal was confirmed by the High Court in CRP No. 1579/2003 and it was not the case of the plaintiffs that they have withdrawn the suit with the permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit and accordingly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). On allowing IA, consequently the suit was dismissed. Against which, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants contends that earlier CRP No. 1579/2003 was dismissed on the ground that the amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration of title basing upon the subsequent events is not maintainable but not on the ground of limitation. Though trial court dismissed IA as barred by limitation, High Court has not gone into said aspect. He further contends that it is not open for the court to decide the point as to whether the dispute raised in the plaint was substantially in issue in the previous suit and hence hit by res judicata, at the stage of numbering the suit and that it is an issue to be decided during the course of trial. He further contends that the rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the Jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit, which can be decided on proving of certain facts and issue framed in that regard. For the said preposition, he relied upon the following decisions:

1.V. RAJESHWARI V. T.C. SARA-VANA