The court affirmed that previous judgments preclude new claims conflicting with established decrees, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural rules regarding amendments and the limitation period.

ORDER :

1. These two Civil Revision Petitions and the writ petition arise out of O.S.No.27/2019, on the file of learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara. Therefore, all the three matters were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court.

3. Prior to the plaintiffs filing O.S.No.27/2019, the 1^st defendant Sri N.Kempaiah had filed O.S.No.124/2018 seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties, against the plaintiffs herein. It was the contention of Sri N.Kempaiah that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Item No.1 of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.160/1, measuring 2 acres 1 gunta situated at Ankanahalli Village, Kilancha Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and item No.2 bearing Sy.No.160/2 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas were purchased by the plaintiffs brother Sri N.Nanjundaiah under registered Sale Deed dated 03.06.1982. The sale deed was executed by Sri Thimmashetty, the uncle of the defendants. Subsequently, in a family partition that took place between Sri N.Nanjundaiah and his brothers, Sy.No.160/1 fell to the share of plaintiff and Sy.No.160/2 fell to the share of another brother Sri Rajanna. Sri Rajanna executed a Gift Deed dated 14.12.2017 in favour of the plaintiff and in that way, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. The partition between the family members of Sri N.Nanjundaiah took place under registered partition deed dated 24.08.2001. Several documents such as mutation orders, mutation entries, RTCs and encumbrance certificates were produced by the plaintiff Sri N.Kempaiah, to substantiate his contention that the revenue entries were mutated pursuant to the sale deed dated 03.06.1982, partition deed dated 24.08.2001 and gift deed dated 14.12.2017 and no objection were raised at the hands of the defendants or their fathers. The trial court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in O.S.No.124/2018, on 03.08.2020. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties at the hands of the plaintiff.

4. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed O.S.No.27/2019 seeking declaration and injunction against N.Kempaiah and his two brothers N.Nanjundaiah and N.Rajanna. In the said suit, the plaint was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, the plaint was re- presented before the competent civil court and was registered as O.S.No.148/2019, which is the present suit. The suit in O.S.No.124/2018 having been decreed, the plaintiffs herein challenged the same in R.A.No.22/2020 and the same was dismissed on 27.05.2021. The Regular Second Appeal No.2058/2021 filed by the plaintiffs herein was also dismissed on 13.04.2023. Thereafter, the defendants herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of CPC seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Both the applications were rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed CRP No.204/2024, challenging the order passed by the trial court rejecting the applicant filed under Order VII Rule 11.

5. After the trial court rejected the applications filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission to withdraw the suit, the plaintiffs filed an applicatio