ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd November, 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Tenancy Revision Application No.271 of 2018. By the impugned order, the MRT has confirmed the orders of the SDO and Tahasildar that the proceedings under Section 32G of Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Land Act (for short BT&AL Act) filed by the respondent nos.1 to 9 are not hit by the principles of res judicata.

2. The petitioner had filed an application before the learned Tahsildar questioning maintainability of the proceeding under Section 32G of BT&AL Act filed by the respondent nos.1 to 9. The challenge was on the ground that the previous proceedings under Section 32G of BT&AL Act, filed by the predecessors of the respondent nos.1 to 9 were dismissed by the learned Tahasildar by order dated 23rd October, 1971. The said order has attained finality and as a consequence thereof, the proceedings filed by the respondent nos.1 to 9 are barred by the principles of res-judicata.

3. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Tahsildar. The petitioner challenged the said order in an appeal before the SDO. The learned SDO concurred with the findings of the Tahasildar and dismissed the appeal by Order dated 15.06.2012. The revision application filed by the petitioners before the MRT has been dismissed by order dated 02.11.2018. Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Mr. G.S. Godbole, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the previous application under Section 32G of the BT&AL Act filed by Nathu and Vithu Bhandari, the predecessors of the respondent nos.1 to 9, had been dismissed by Order dated 23rd October, 1971. The said order was passed after recording the statements of the predecessor of the petitioner and the same has attained finality. He contends that the respondent nos.1 to 9 have filed fresh application under Section 32G by suppressing these material facts. He contends that the previous proceedings having been dropped, the subsequent proceedings under Section 32G are barred by the principles of res-judicata.

5. Mr. A.V. Anturkar, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the previous application filed by the predecessor of the respondent nos.1 to 9 was not heard on merits. There was no adjudication and or final decision deciding the rights of the parties, and hence the principles of res-judicata are not applicable.

6. The learned counsels for the respective parties have relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court to explain the scope and object of Section 11 of the CPC. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties, it would be advantageous to consider the scope of section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which reads thus :-

S.11 Res Judicata “No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Explanation I:

The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

Explanation II:

For the purpose of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.

Explanation III:

The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

Explanation IV:

Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter