I.S.TIWANA, J.

1. The following question of law has been referred to this Full Bench for decision :-

"Whether, in no case, a decision under Order 22, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, would operate as res judicata between the same parties or their successors-in-interest or their privies in subsequent proceedings even when the contested issue in the earlier proceedings had been decided by the Court on merits after affording fair and due opportunity to the contesting parties to lead evidence and of hearing?"

A few skeletal facts necessary to unfold the basic legal contention only are noticed as under.

2 The present plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), along with their mother, Smt. Amar Kaur, brought a suit on July 1, 1958 for maintenance against their grandfather, Ishar Singh, with the allegation that since their father Milkhi was unheard of for the last more than thirteen years and was presumed to be dead, the defendant Ishar Singh was under a legal obligation to maintain them from the property in his hands. The said suit was decreed on August 30, 1961, by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Garhshankar. Before an appeal could be filed against that decree I