JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner/defendant (for brevity “the defendant”) assails the legality and validity of the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) dismissing an application filed by her under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed a suit seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized in between the parties on the ground of cruelty wherein, the defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.03.2021, impugned herein.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the present suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable inasmuch as his earlier two suits seeking decree of dissolution of marriage were dismissed by the learned Family Court at New Delhi. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 04.03.2021 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by her under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the application filed by the defendant was not maintainable inasmuch as her earlier application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.04.2019. He submits that one of divorce petitions filed by him at New Delhi was withdrawn by him and after dismissal of his second petition seeking dissolution of marriage by the learned Family, New Delhi vide judgment dated 29.05.2015, he has filed the present suit based on subsequent events and hence, principle of res-judicata is not attracted. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of this Court in case of Munni Devi and Others vs. Ramsahai (Since Deceased) through LRs. 2023 (2) DNJ (Raj) 730.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. The application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed by the learned Family Court on the premise that her earlier similar application came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2019. It is trite law that the principle of res-judicata/constructive res-judicata is applicable in the same proceeding during pendency of the suit at successive stages. In case of Munni Devi and Others (supra), it was held as under:

“5. Indisputably, the petitioners have filed an earlier application dated 16.04.2021 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint alleging that without seeking declaration as to his khatedari rights, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. The application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 19.08.2021 which has attained finality. Thereafter, the instant application filed by the petitioners raising similar objection has been dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2022, impugned herein. It is trite law that the principles of res judicata/constructive judicata are applicable in the subsequent stages of same proceedings during pendency of the suit. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Sahina vs. Returning Officer (Panchayat) Gram Panchayat Jhiwana and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6916/2017, vide order dated 10.05.2017 held as under:

“(6) Of importance in the case is the fact of an earlier application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed by the trial, court on 12-2-2016. The RC did not in the said application set up a ground under Rule 81 of the Rules of 1994 with regard to the election petition not being presented by the election petitioner or by one duly authorised by her in writing. The RC at the stage of final arguments then filed the second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which has been dismissed by the impugned order by the trial court. Section 141 CPC provides that the procedu