IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of res judicata prevents relitigation of issues that have been conclusively decided in a prior suit, and a plaint may be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The present Revision Application is filed by original defendant being aggrieved by the order dtd. 29/9/2021 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.1280 of 2019 below Exh.13, i.e. application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Factual matrix are as under : That Mr. Milind Dinkarrao Kathale and Ravindra Ramaji Bhade filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 for declaration and injunction against Mr. Premchand Brijlal Jain and Utkarsh Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of plot bearing Nos.167 and 168 respectively, situated in the layout of non-applicant Society. They also claimed permanent mandatory injunction against defendant No.1 (Premchand Brijlal Jain) from disturbing the peaceful possession over the suit property. The said Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 came to be decreed on 10/1/2008 and plaintiffs were declared owners of plot Nos. 167 and 168 respectively. The learned Trial Court also granted permanent mandatory injunction against defendant No.1 - Premchand Brijlal jain. The said judgment and decree attained finality. In September - 2019, one Shyam Revachand Suwarani filed a Regular Civil Suit No.1280 of 2019 against the Utkarsh Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur and Abhijit Realtors and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction. In the said suit filed by Shyam Revachand Suwarani, claiming ownership of the property without any document of title and also claiming that he was in possession on the basis of 'Kabjapatra' executed by Premchand Brijlal Jain dtd. 19/6/2004. It is also his contention that Premchand Brijlal Jain had also executed a registered 'Power of Attorney' in favour of him on 22/6/2004. Thus, he was empowered with the 'Power of Attorney' and was put in possession of plot No.167. In view of these submission in the plaint, the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by defendant No.2- Abhijit Realtors & Infraventures Pvt. Ltd.

4. In Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 Premchand Brijlal Jain was defendant No.1 and Utkarsh Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur was defendant No.2. The 23rd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur decreed the Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 on 10/1/2008 with costs and plaintiff were declared as owners of plot Nos.167 and 168 respectively. In the said suit, the said Premchand Brijlal Jain and any other person claiming though him were restrained from disturbing peaceful possession of plaintiffs over the plot Nos.167 and 168. As such, it is claimed that the earlier suit will operates as constructive res judicata. The judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 attained finality. It is contended by the Society that the defendant Society sold the plot bearing No. 167 to Shri Ravindra Ramaji Bhade one of the plaintiff in the earlier suit by registered saledeed and subsequently said Ravindra Ramaji Bhade transferred the said plot to one Shri Arun Namdeorao Kaware by registered sale-deed on 2/12/2016 and since then the said Arun Namdeorao Kaware is in possession of the said plot. On the backdrop of this factual matrix, it is clear that the earlier judgment passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005 has attained finality wherein ownership of the plots is decided.

5. Secondly, the plaintiff is not having any document of his title over the suit property. The plaintiff Shyam Revachand Surwarni claiming ownership of the suit property on the basis of 'Power of Attorney' and 'Kabjapatra' issued by one Premchand Brijlal Jain, who was defendant in the earlier suit, his rights are already determined and there is no challenge by the said Premchand Brijlal Jain to this judgment in any other higher Court.

6. In spite of service to the respondent No.1, he choos