The principle of res judicata applies when the matter raised directly and substantially in issue in both the suits/cases is the same, and the previously instituted suit and subsequent suit are parallel.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge impugned order dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner-defendant under Sections 10 and 11 CPC was dismissed as well as order dated 09.11.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-defendant for review of order dated 06.05.2016 was also dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present revision petition are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they being tenant are in possession of the land in dispute and also for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession. The suit was contested by the present petitioner-defendant by specifically stating that respondent No.2 was not the owner of property in dispute as he never purchased the same. The execution of pattanama was also denied by the petitioner-defendant. Respondent No.1 filed an application for correction in khasra girdawari, which was allowed. The petitioner-defendant preferred an appeal, which was decided on 17.05.2000. The Collector, Hoshiarpur set-aside the order of correction in khasra girdawari on the ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend his case and the case was remanded to Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Tanda with the direction to decide the matter afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-defendant.

3. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant moved an application under Sections 10 and 11 CPC, to which, the respondents-plaintiffs filed reply. Said application was dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for review of order dated 06.05.2016, which was also dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2016. Both the aforesaid orders are subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that the order passed in appeal in the case of correction in khasra girdawari was never challenged. The case was remanded back but no application was moved. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner-defendant is in possession of the land in dispute for the last many years and in the application moved by the respondents for correction in khasra girdawari, the notice was issued at wrong address and he was proceeded ex-parte. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur and ex-parte order was set aside and the case was remanded back to Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Hoshiarpur to decide the case afresh after granting opportunity to the petitioner to plead his case. The said order was never challenged by the respondents before any Court and as such, the same had attained finality. Learned counsel also submits that the name of the petitioner was again incorporated in the revenue records. The respondents filed the suit for declaration stating therein that they being tenant were in possession of the land in dispute. Learned counsel also submits that the version of the petitioner has been corroborated by the documentary evidence and the matter in controversy in the previously instituted suit before the Revenue Court and the present suit are directly and substantially the same between the parties.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned orders dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure P-5) and 09.11.2016 (Annexure P-7).

6. The application under Sections 10 and 11 CPC has been moved by the petitioner for dismissal of the suit as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the suit as the matter is pending before the Revenue Court. The application was contested by the res