( 1 ) THE petitioner in this Civil Revision Application is the original defendant and he was working as the Pujari of a temple called Gayatri Mandir at Rajkot. The plaintiffs who are the opponents in this Civil Revision Application are the trustees of the Gayatri Mandir. In 1958 the trustees filed a suit being Suit No. 705 of 1958 and that suit is pending in the Court of the 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Rajkot. In this suit the plaintiffs-trustees sought removal of the Pujari on various grounds viz. (a) old age of the Pujari and (b) the alleged breaches and violations of the rules of the Trust. The defendant in his written statement contended that the trust was not valid. He also challenged the validity of the appointments of the plaintiffs as the Trustees of Gayatri Mandir. He also challenged the validity of the rules with the breach or violation of which he was charged and he further challenged the competence of the trustees to remove the Pujari from his post.

( 2 ) IT appears that there was some previous litigation between the parties. In 1954 the Trustees had filed a suit being Suit No. 608 of 1954 against the Pujari and in that suit the same contentions were taken by the rival sides as have been taken in the present suit viz. Suit No. 705 of 1958 In Suit No. 608 of 1954 the Court of the first instance passed a decree in favour of the trustees and against the Pujari. Thereafter there was an appeal and that appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1957 was dismissed by the first appellate Court. There was a Second Appeal to the High Court and that Second Appeal No. 153 of 1957 was decided by Vyas J. at Rajkot on January 9 1958 That appeal necessarily was by the Pujari as he had lost in that earlier litigation in the two subordinate Courts. Vyas J. allowed the appeal of the Pujari as he held that the notice served by the trustees on the Pujari violated the principles of natural justice. He therefore set aside the decrees of the two subordinate Courts and dismissed the suit filed by the trustees. After this judgment of the High Court on January 9 1958 a fresh notice appears to have been served upon the Pujari and thereafter Suit No. 705 of 1958 i. e. the present suit was filed in the Court of the first instance. In that suit it was contended that the findings of the High Court in the earlier litigation operated as res judicata in the present suit. It appears that while allowing the appeal of the Pujari Vyas J. had observed that the Trust was legal that the appointment of the trustees was legal that the rules framed by the trustees were legal and that the defendant Pujari was appointed by the trustees who could remove him by giving him a valid notice. Now as regards the contentions which I have set out above as raised by the Pujari in the present litigation issue No. 3 was raised as follows:-"is it proved that the Honble High Court of Bombay has held in Civil Appeal No. 153 of 1957 between the parties that the trust is legal that the appointment of trustees is legal that the rules proved by the trustees are legal that the defendant Pujari is appointed by the plaintiffs-trustees who can remove him by giving a valid notice? If so are the contentions of the defendant raised in the written statement not barred by the principles of res judicata?"

( 3 ) IN the present suit the defendant Pujari was also contending that he was entitled to perform Puja till his life and that the office of the Pujari was hereditary and that the Trust was illegal; and regarding these contentions issue No. 4 was framed in this manner:-"is the defendant entitled to raise the contentions that he is entitled to perform Puja till his life that the office of the Pujari is hereditary and that the trust is illegal as alleged in Paras 28 29 30 of the Written Statement in view of the decision of the high Court in Civil Appeal No. 153 of 1957?"

( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge Junior Division Rajkot tried issues Nos. 3 and 4 as preliminary iss