The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of res judicata, specifically under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and its impact on the present suit.

V.K. JAIN, J. :

1. The defendant no.1 before this Court, namely Smt. Charanjit Kaur Sahni filed a suit against Shri Subhash Rathi and M/s Som Motors for possession of the property bearing number CN-5, 34/22, Bawana Road, Samaipur Badli, Delhi-110 052 on the ground that they were tenants under her and the tenancy had been terminated vide notice dated 28.12.2007. A decree for possession of the aforesaid property was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in that suit, on 23.05.2009. The plaintiff before this Court namely Shri Khushi Ram and one Ms. Suman, who is defendant no.3, in this suit filed objections during execution of the aforesaid decree. Shri Khushi Ram claimed to have purchased 800 sq. yards of land situated in property bearing number 34/22 in the Revenue Estate of Village Samaipur near Badli Extension in the year 1979. He alleged that Subhash Rathi, defendant no.2 in this suit, had illegally trespassed upon his property and on his objecting to it, Shri Subhash Rathi vacated the said property. He further alleged that the said property was then let out by him to Ms. Suman, defendant no.3 in the present suit. He alleged also that the decree holder Smt. Charanjit Kaur Sahni was trying to take possession of the said property from Smt. Suman, The objector, accordingly sought recall of the warrants of possession issued by the Executing Court.

2. The learned Civil Judge before whom the objections were filed, vide order dated 9.9.2011 held that there was collusion between the objector and the judgment debtors. The objections were dismissed being devoid of any merits.

3. Now this suit has been filed by Shri Khushi Ram seeking injunction against his dispossession from the said land measuring 800 sq. yards. He has also sought declaration that the warrants issued in Execution Case No.74/2009 are not executable against his property.

4. IA No.15091/2011 has been filed by the plaintiff Shri Khushi Ram seeking interim protection during pendency of this suit.

5. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the extent it is relevant, provides that 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 VII to this Section, provides that the provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII provides that an issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

6. The philosophy behind the doctrine of res judicata is that an issue or point which has been decided and has attained finality, should not be allowed to be reopen and re-agitated. The doctrine aims at giving finality to the lis between the parties. There is a distinction between ‘issue estoppel’ and ‘res judicata’. Res judicata debars a Court from exercising jurisdiction to determine the lis which has already attained finality between the parties, whereas the doctrine of ‘issue estoppel’ stops a party against whom an issue is decided, from raising the same in subsequent proceedings. ‘The matter in issue’ may be an issue of fact, an issue of law or a mixed issue of fact and law. If a right is claimed by one part