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

2. Rule.

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

4. By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the order dated 30th March, 2016, passed by 8th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, below Exh.27, in Special Civil Suit No.254 of 2014.

5. Application at Exh.27 was filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by principles of resjudicata under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure and also on the ground of limitation. The trial Court, however, rejected the said application.

6. The suit before the trial Court is filed by the respondent herein seeking declaration that the agreement dated 11.7.1994, in respect of suit land be declared as illegal, null and void and for further declaration that the petitioner-defendant No.1 is a trespasser in the suit property and consequently for recovery of possession of the suit property.

7. The contention of the petitioner herein, before trial Court and before this Court is that already dispute between the parties has been settled in CCT. No.237 of 2017, filed by respondent herein in the Co-operative Court at Thane. The said proceeding was filed for the declaration and vacant possession of the suit flat. The Co-operative Court, Thane, vide its judgment and order dated 30th January 2011, decided the suit declaring that the present petitioner is trespasser and is in illegal possession of the suit flat. Accordingly he was also directed to hand over the possession of the suit property to respondent. Against the said order, the present petitioner preferred Appeal No.88 of 2011, before the Co-operative Appellate Court and Appellate Court allowed the said Appeal vide its judgment and order dated 26th March, 2013. The respondent herein filed Writ Petition No.4393 of 2013 against the order of the Appellate Court. This Court vide its order dated 17th September 2013, dismissed the said Writ Petition, confirming the finding arrived at by the Co-operative Appellate Court that the petitioner is in lawful possession of the suit flat.

8. Thus, it is submitted that there is concurrent finding of fact of Co-operative Appellate Court and this Court. Thus, the dispute involved in the present petition is decided finally by the Co-operative Appellate Court, and also by the High Court, categorically holding that the possession of the respondent-plaintiff is not as that of a trespasser. Hence now by this suit, respondent cannot raise the same dispute that the present petitioner is trespasser in the suit property. Hence, the suit is barred by the principles of resjudicata. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the Explanation 8 to Section 11 of CPC, relating to resjudicata which reads thus:-

“Explanation VIII – An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as resjudicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.”

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court, in the case of Smt. Dayawati and ors v. Madan Lal Varma and ors, (AIR 2003 Allahabad 276) and of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Abdul Rahim and ors v. Sk. Abdul Zabar and ors, [AIR 2010 SC 211] to advance the plea that when the suit is apparently barred by principles of resjudicata, only option left before the trial Court was to reject the plaint.

10. Secondly, it is submitted that as per Section 59 of the Limitation Act, the suit for cancellation of agreement was required to be filed within three years from the date of the knowledge. The facts which according to respondent entitled her for