Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the learned Sub Judge-1, Darbhanga in Partition Suit No. 56 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the petition dated 04.09.2015 filed by the original petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).

2. The conspectus of the case, as it appears from the record, is that the respondent filed a Partition Suit No. 56 of 2008 on 29.03.2008 in the court of learned Sub Judge-1, Darbhanga impleading the original petitioner as defendant 1st set and other 122 persons as defendants 2nd and 3rd set. The Partition Suit No. 56 of 2008 has been filed seeking following reliefs:—

“(1) That on the consideration of the fact as stated above the court be pleased to set aside the decree passed in partition suit no. 136/70 by the court of Sub Judge, Darbhanga.

(2) That the court be pleased to hold and declare that the decree passed in partition suit no. 136/70 in the garb of compromise was fraudulently obtained in collusion with the father and grand father of the plaintiff and did no peruse the compromise arrived at as a result of which the court proceeded ex-parte and they did not save the interest of the plaintiff and as such be pleased to hold that the said decree is not binding on the plaintiff.

(3) That the court be pleased to hold and pass a decree afresh after setting aside the decree aforesaid as not binding on the plaintiff.

(4) That the court be pleased to hold and declare that the partition of the property standing in the name of the grand father or his brother could not have been made subject matter of partition rather the same was exclusive property of the family of the plaintiff and the grand father of the plaintiff over looked to raise any objection with respect to the same, which is described in schedule 1 & 2 of this plaint and also the same schedule is in previous suit.

(5) That the court be pleased to pass a decree for cost”.

3. The original petitioner appeared and filed his written statement on 01.12.2009 denying the allegations/ averments made by the respondent and prayed for dismissal of the instant suit and during pendency of the suit, the original petitioner filed a petition on 04.09.2015 before the learned trial court under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Sections 11 and 151 of the Code with a prayer to reject the plaint. Another petition in continuation of the aforesaid petition dated 04.09.2015 has been filed by the original petitioner on 07.06.2017. The learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 25.10.2018 rejected the petition dated 04.09.2015, which has been challenged in the present petition.

4. Mr. J.S. Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently contended that the rejection order of the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the plaint filed by the respondent is covered within the four corners of doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff has categorically admitted in his plaint that the same issue already stood decided between the same parties not only by the learned trial court but also by the High Court. The learned trial court has also failed to consider that relief sought for by the respondent is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned trial court and, as such, the plaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable. The learned trial court has no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and decree passed by a court of coordinate jurisdiction, which has already been confirmed up to the High Court in the year 1978 itself. The learned trial court ought to have considered that the respondent is bound by the judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court passed in Partition Suit No. 136/1970 as well as in First Appeal No.349/1978, respectively in respect of the same land between the same parties. Mr. Arora further submitted that