The judgment emphasizes the application of Section 11 CPC and the principle of resjudicata, highlighting the need for finality in judicial decisions and the prevention of new investigations on the same question of law.

(Revision under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 31-10-2002 made in I.A. No. 555 of 2001 in O.S. No. 182 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur.)

The plaintiff is the revision petitioner, who has filed the suit in O.S. No. 182 of 1998 before the District Munsif Court, Karur for declaration and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the first defendant has filed I.A. No.555 of 2001 praying to decide the preliminary issue as to whether the suit is barred by resjudicata or not, which was allowed by the trial court by order dated 31-10-2002 and the same is challenged in this revision petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the respondents in the said interim application was that the petitioner herein has already filed a suit in O.S. No. 587 of 1990 before the District Munsif Court, Karur against them for permanent injunction from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property; that the said suit was dismissed and later, the petitioner herein has filed A.S. No. 78 of 1994 which was also dismissed and in view of the said fact that the issue involved in the present suit was already adjudicated upon on merits finally in an earlier litigation and that the present suit is hit by the principles of rejudicata.

3. The petitioner herein contested the said interim application stating that whether the issue involved in the present suit is directly and substantially involved in the earlier suit or not be decided only at the time of trial after adducing oral and documentary evidence and the subject matter of the present suit is entirely different from the earlier proceedings, hence the plea of resjudicata ought to have been rejected by the court below.

4. It is not in dispute that the parties and properties in both the suit are same.

5. Now, we look into the provisions of Section 11 C.P.C. Which runs as follows:-

"11. Res judicata. - 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 I : The expression 'former suit' shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

Explanation II : For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.

Explanation III : The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

Explanation IV : Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground or defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.

Explanation V : Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to have been refused.

Explanation VI : Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.

Explanation VII : 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 a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.

Explanation VIII : An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited