Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.

1. Heard on I.A. No. 4/2015 for dispensing from service of notice to respondents 9, 10 and 12.

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that as the applicants are not seeking any relief from respondents 9, 10 and 12, they be dispensed from service of notice to the above respondents.

The application is supported by an affidavit.

On due consideration, as the applicants themselves are not seeking any relief and further prayed that they be dispensed with the service of respondents 9, 10 and 12, I.A. No. 4/2015 is hereby allowed and the applicants are dispensed with the service of notice to respondents 9, 10 and also to proposed LRs. of respondent No. 12, if any.

Heard the matter finally at the motion stage itself.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that as the present applicants have filed Civil Suit No. 23A/06 in which the elder brother of respondents 1 and 2, i.e., Boga S/o. Bhora was a contesting defendant. Vide judgment and decree dated 31-03-2008, the suit filed by the present applicants was dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree, they had filed first appeal before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur, C.G. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court; against which Ransi and others had preferred second appeal before the High Court. This Court vide order dated 20-07-2011 passed in Second Appeal No. 125/2011 dismissed the second appeal and held that no any substantial question of law is attracted for the hearing of the appeal on its merit. Thus, as the order passed, findings and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court was affirmed, the same attains finality till the moment. In the proceeding before the trial Court, Sonu stood as witness for his elder brother Boga, hence he had knowledge for the pendency of the said suit No. 23A/06, also Boga who had filed the written statement he also mentioned the name of his two other brothers, i.e., Sonu and Aayatu, hence, if Sonu and Aayatu wished they were having opportunity to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and they may be impleaded as party. It is submitted that with this, Sonu and Aayatu had not filed any application for impleading them as party in that suit thereby though they were not party to that suit, the said knowledge of the proceeding of that civil suit operates as res judicata for the subsequent Civil Suit No. 12A/14 filed by respondents 1 and 2 before the Vth Civil Judge Class-II, Bastar at Jagdalpur. Learned counsel submits that as the findings of this Court in Second Appeal No. 125/2011 remains unchallenged, the said is res judicata for hearing of Civil Suit No. 12A/14. Learned counsel further submits that as the Sonu was a witness in Civil Suit No. 23A/06, he had knowledge for the litigation and as the present respondents 1 and 2 they were living jointly along with elder brother Boga, hence, by living together they had knowledge for the aforementioned civil suit and the dispute, therefore Civil Suit No. 12A/14 is also barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance in the matter of Damodar Prasad and another v. State of M.P. and Others, 2001 (1) MPHT 79. Learned counsel further submits that in the case law cited it is held that since the matter was decided earlier, the other villagers cannot agitate the same matter again.

For the appreciation of arguments advanced on motion, the petition and record is hereby perused.

2. From close scrutiny of the facts, it emerges that undisputedly Sonu and Aayatu are not party in Civil Suit No. 23A/06. As per settled law of, all the brothers, as with the present facts, they are separate legal person. Nothing could be inferred as they are living together, hence they had knowledge for the same. Also as per settled law, if other legal person files written statement, the filing of written statement cannot itself operates as knowledge to other legal perso