A subsequent suit is barred by the doctrine of res sub judice if the subject matter of the suit and claim of the respective parties for adjudication by the court are identical and the subsequent suit has been filed before the same court.

Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.:

1. In the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioners Sunil Kumar Mondal and Ors. have claimed that the opposite party nos. 1 to 8 filed a title suit being no. 83 of 1993 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bolepur, District Birbhum praying for declaration of their right, title and interest in respect of 1 Satak of land out of 6 Sataks in plot no. 1183, GL No. 144 under Panchpara Mouza, Block Labhpur, District Birbhum with prayer for injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 to 3 from dispossessing them from ‘Ka’ scheduled property though they admitted in the plaint that the names of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have been duly recorded in the relevant record of rights as occupier of the same by constructing a hut (Chalaghar) thereon. The present writ petitioners being defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the said title suit are contesting the suit by filing written statement denying the aforesaid allegation. During pendency of the said suit the present writ petitioners have instituted another suit against the present opposite parties being title suit no. 104 of 2006 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bolepur for a declaration of their right, title and interest in respect of the same suit land with prayer for injunction restraining the defendants therein to refrain from disturbing the peaceful possession of the said land by them.

2. It is further contended by them that the contents of the previous suit as well as the written statement and that of the later suit being identical it is quite expedient to conduct analogous hearing of both the suits and for this purpose they filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the Learned Trial Court for analogous hearing of the same. But such prayer was considered and rejected by the Learned Trial Court on 11.02.2006. Then they moved the Hon’ble Court challenging the legality and propriety of the said order of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in C. O. No. 990 of 2007. The Hon’ble Court while disposing of the said writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by order dated 28.02.2008 was pleased to direct the Learned Court below to use its discretion in the matter at a subsequent stage and if it is of the opinion that for the ends of justice the two suits are required to be heard together the Learned Court will pass appropriate order. Accordingly the writ petitioners again filed an application under Section 151 CPC with similar prayer before the Learned Trial Court. The Learned Trial Court adhered to its earlier decision and disposed of their said second application filed on 16.02.2009 and rejected the prayer on 30.07.2009.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such finding of the Learned Trial Court dated 30.07.2009 the present writ petitioner have filed the instant petition contending inter alia, that the circumstances prevailing on 09.02.2007 while they moved the C. O. No. 990 of 2007 before this Court are quite different from the circumstances that led them to prefer the same prayer under Section 151 CPC on 16.02.2009 which was again rejected on 30.07.2009 by the Learned Trial Court without appreciating the subsequent facts and circumstances justifying analogous trial of the suits.

4. Learned lawyer for the respondents has claimed that apprehending their defeat in the earlier suit filed by them in 1993 which is now at the argument stage the present writ petitioners being defendants of the earlier suit have filed the subsequent suit on the similar grounds which are in fact set out in their written statement already filed in 1994 for adjudication of the Learned Trial Court. There has not been any change of circumstances that can lead to the fragmentation of their claims made in 1994 by filing another title suit being no. 104 of 2006. Therefore, the Learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected their prayer which should not be interfered with.

5. Having