VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 05.08.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hisar, vide which the application filed by the present petitioner and the proforma respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-3) for the rejection of plaint was dismissed.

2. The facts, briefly put, are that the contesting respondents-plaintiffs i.e., respondents No.1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 14 Kanals 1 Marla situated at Village Sandlana, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar (fully described in the plaint) which had fallen to the share of the respondent-plaintiff No.1-Bhim Singh in partition. The prayer also was that the respondents-plaintiffs were entitled to get their names recorded in the revenue record as owners and the land was not liable to be partitioned. A declaration to the effect that the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Barwala, District Hisar was illegal was also sought. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiffs that they and the defendants (i.e., the present petitioners and the proforma respondents) were closely related. An oral partition had taken place amongst the brothers i.e., respondent No.1/plaintiff and the present petitioner as also their brother-Kartar Singh in the year 1976 with regard to the land of the parties and the land in dispute measuring 114 Kanals 1 Marlas came to the share of the respondent/plaintiff No.1-Bhim Singh and possession was also exchanged. Certain other averments were also made and the declaration as referred to above was sought.

3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-3) was moved by the present petitioner/defendant. The case of the petitioner/defendant was that previously on 03.09.2016, the present petitioner/defendant and proforma respondent No.1 had filed a civil suit titled as Shamsher and others Vs. Dhup Singh and others, seeking injunction restraining the defendants therein (plaintiffs in the present case) from alienating the suit land therein on the ground that the suit land was joint and the parties were co-sharers. A plea was raised by the defendants therein (plaintiffs in the present case) namely, Bhim Singh and others that the suit had already been partitioned on the basis of an oral settlement. However, this plea was rejected by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure P-2) and a specific finding was given that the plea of oral partition had not been established and the disputed land was still joint. It was averred in the application that though the Civil Suit was dismissed and injunction was not granted on the ground that no injunction could have been issued against co-sharers, a clear-cut finding with regard to the plea of oral partition was given. The appeal filed by Bhim Singh and others was stated to be pending. It was, therefore, averred that the issue with regard to the status of the parties i.e., as to whether they were co-sharers or not had been settled in the previous case and, therefore, the same could not be permitted to be re-agitated again. Accordingly, rejection of the plaint was sought.

4. The application for rejection of the plaint was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-4).

5. The learned trial Court, after considering the respective stands of the parties, rejected the application. It was held that in the previous suit which was being relied upon by the petitioner/defendant, the parties were not the same. It was also held that since the judgment had not attained finality, the issue of oral partition could not be said to have been finally decided by the court and, therefore, it, it held that the principle of res judicata would not be applicable.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

7. I have heard learned counsel fo