The petitioner and the respondent are brothers. The respondent filed OS No. 284 of 2010 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, for the relief of declaration to the effect that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e., premises bearing No. 16-8-280, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, and for perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. The respondent has narrated the manner in which he is said to have acquired the title to the property. The petitioner filed written statement, opposing the suit. One of the grounds urged by him was that the question of title to the property was determined by the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OS No. 1409 of 1992 and that the decree passed therein was confirmed in AS No. 131 of 2001 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner filed IA No. 338 of 2011 under Rule 11 of Order VII read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint, on the ground that it is hit by principle of res judicata. The respondent filed counter, opposing the IA. He raised the plea that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law. The trial Court dismissed the IA, through order, dated 7.4.2011. Hence, this revision.

3. Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the question of title to the suit schedule property was determined in earlier round of litigation, the present suit by the respondent is not maintainable at all. He contends that though the respondent was held to be entitled to half of the suit schedule property, he filed the suit to declare that he is the absolute owner of the entire property. Learned Counsel submits that the trial Court has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter and that the petitioner is subjected to the ordeal of going to the trial, despite the fact that the issue has already been decided.

4. Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the issue that fell for consideration in OS No. 1409 of 1992 is substantially different and the finding therein does not operate as res judicata in the present suit. He further submits that the question as to whether a finding on an issue, in an earlier suit operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit, is a mixed question of fact and law, and at the best, it can constitute the subject-matter of an issue, but not a ground to reject the plaint in the subsequent suit. He contends that Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not take in its fold, the ground of res judicata.

5. The respondent herein filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The petitioner wanted the suit to be terminated, by rejection of plaint, on the ground that it is hit by the principle of res judicata. The trial Court did not accede to the request of the petitioner.

6. Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., provides for an exceptional remedy to the defendant in a suit, to get the proceedings terminated without the necessity of trial. In the ordinary course of things, once a suit is filed, the issues are to be framed on the basis of pleadings and the Court has to determine the issues, after conducting trial and it is thus the suit comes to be terminated, with a decree on merits. The facility created under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., is that, if the grounds mentioned therein are attracted, in a given case, the plaint can be rejected, and thereby, the necessity to undertake trial is obviated. The provision reads :

"11.Rejectian of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases,-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the