Arvind Kumar, J.:- This regular second appeal is being preferred by the appellants - defendants who have lost concurrently before the two courts below and the findings have been returned against them in respect of their illegal, occupation of the suit property, shown as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint. That apart, the appellants have also been required to pay Rs.500/- as damages for use and occupation of the suit property along with the costs of the suit to the respondent-plaintiff.

2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal and emerging out from the record of the case are that the plaintiff-Company, claiming itself to be owner of the plot measuring 8 marlas, fully described in the suit itself and shown as ABCD in the site plan attached, filed a suit against Bhani Devi and another (appellants herein) for possession of the suit property and recovery of Rs.500/- as compensation on account of its use and occupation by them from 25.07.1970 to 25.07.1973. It was the case of the plaintiff that by dint of sale-deed dated 30.06.1964, they had purchased the suit property along with other land, but the defendants, who have no right in the same, have illegally encroached upon the suit property and have enjoyed the same for number of years.

3. On the other hand, the case of the defendants was that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata, as the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff Company in respect of that very suit property was earlier dismissed by the trial court and subsequent suit is not maintainable. Though the ownership of plaintiff in respect of the suit property was admitted by the defendants, but it was pleaded that the plot in question was given to them by the plaintiff as gift and as compensation on account of death of Sh. Buta Ram, the husband of defendant No.1, for the service’s rendered by the deceased to the plaintiff Company. It was further alleged that they had raised a construction over the plot in question and have incurred expenses of about Rs.10,000/- and have become the owner of the same.

4. The issues were settled and both the parties led their respective evidence in support of the same.

5. After appraisal for the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned trial court decided all the issues against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, in the manner indicated above.

6. Dissatisfied with the same, instant regular appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have also gone through the case file carefully.

8. After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantial question of law which requires determination of this Court is:

“Whether the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is barred by the principle of res judicata?

This issue covers the whole controversy between the parties.

9. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter 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. It is well known that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is based on the salutary principle that a defendant or defendants should not be twice vexed for the same cause by splitting the claim and the relief. The Rule does not preclude a second suit based on a distinct cause of action. It may not be out of place to clarify that the doctrine of res judicata differs from the rule embodied in Order 2, Rule 2, in that, the former places emphasis on the plaintiffs-duty to exhaust all available grounds in support of his claim while the latter requires the plaintiff to claim all reliefs emanating from the same