1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Rule.

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties and the Revision Application is taken up for final hearing.

4. This Revision Application, filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, takes an exception to the order dated 1.8.2016, passed by the 5th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune below Exh. 25 in Special Civil Suit No.1196 of 2014.

5. The petitioners herein are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 6. Application at Exh.25 was filed by them under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the suit does not disclose the cause of action and the suit is apparently barred by the principle of res-judicata under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court, however, after hearing, learned counsel for both the parties, was pleased to reject the said application and hence the instant Revision Application, to set aside the said order.

6. Facts of the litigation are to the effect that, respondent Nos. 1 & 2, have filed this suit before the trial Court for partition and separate possession of their share in the ancestral joint family properties. They are the daughters of original defendant No.8, who is respondent No.4 in this Revision Application. The defendant No.8 Vitthal, alongwith his brothers and mother had earlier filed the suit bearing R.C.S.No.82 of 1991, in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division at Ghodnadi, District Pune, for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties, which were agricultural lands and also the house property. In that suit, present petitioners had raised a specific contention that the partition of the ancestral joint family properties has already been effected in the year 1958 and since then all the co-sharers are cultivating their respective shares and also residing separately. Accordingly, issue No.4 was framed in the said suit as to “Whether the present petitioners prove that the partition of the ancestral properties has already been effected in the year 1958?”. In the said suit, both parties led oral as well as documentary evidence and the on the basis of the same, the trial Court was pleased to answer that issue in the affirmative and to dismiss the said suit vide its judgment and order dated 9.10.2000.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, Civil Appeal No.1013 of 2000 was preferred by the plaintiffs in that suit and in the said appeal, same point was framed for determination as to, “Whether the defendants prove that the partition of ancestral properties has been effected or not?” The Appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the trial Court and held that the partition of landed property has already been effected between the three brothers in the year 1958 and same was acted upon. This point was, thus, answered in affirmative as “proved” and accordingly appeal came to be dismissed so far as partition of agricultural lands was concerned. However, as regards house properties, it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to get partition and separate possession of their share.

8. This judgment of the Appellate Court dated 28th March, 2003, was challenged by the original plaintiffs of that suit in Second Appeal No.49 of 2005 and this Court vide its order dated 31st March, 2005, was pleased to hold as follows:-

“After having heard counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are based on legal evidence. There is no perversity in the findings of the Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs”.

9. Thus, the earlier suit which was filed by defendant No.8 Vitthal alongwith his other brothers, for partition of the agricultural lands came to be dismissed upto this Court, holding that the partition of the lands has already been effected in the year 1958 and also