The cause of action for a subsequent suit must be different from the cause of action in earlier suits for res-judicata to apply.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Before answering the arguments, as it has been extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist, this Court feels it apt to deal with the circumstances, under which the impugned order dated 5th June 2022, as it has been rendered in Civil Suit No. 1 of 2017, Dinesh Chandra Thapliyal and Another vs. Ramesh Chandra Thapliyal and Another, was rendered by the Court below, whereby the two issues being issue No. 8, with regard to the implications of Section 11 of the CPC and the issue No. 9 with regard to attracting the bar of institution of the proceedings of Suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, has been answered against the defendants/revisionist by the impugned order, which is under challenge.

2. The factual backdrop of the instant case, which requires consideration is, that earlier a Civil Suit, being Civil Suit No. 41 of 1992, Ramesh Chandra Thapliyal vs. Smt. Deveswari Devi and Others, was instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Pauri Garhwal, by invoking the provisions contained under Section 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, wherein the “subject matter” which has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist, as if the subject matter would be the “property involved” i.e. the land lying in village Srikot, Ganganali, Patti Katulsyun khatauni khata No. 27, having 6 Nali 9 Mutthi of village Koteshwar, the land lying in khata No. 8 out of which 15 Nalis lies in village Kothad, Katulsyun in khasra No. 7/8, 4 Nali 5 Mutthi and also that of the land lying in khata No. 45 of an area of 14 nali 3 mutthi of land, out of the aforesaid 5 khata Nos; total 44 nali 2 mutthi of land were the subject matter in dispute in a Suit for the grant of decree of apportionment of shares, as instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 8th June 1992. If the principal relief, which was sought in the said Suit is taken into consideration, which is extracted hereunder; it reads as under:

^^vuqrks"k
¼v½ Áfroknh la[;k 1 ds uke uxjikfydk Jhuxj ds vfHkys[kksa esa vafdr o uUnk nsoh eksgYyk] xq:}kjk jksM+ Jhuxj esa fLFkr nknjlh Hkou dk caVokjk dj oknh dk mlesa 1@5 nknjlh ekfydkuk gd fgLlk ?kksf"kr dj vyx fd;k tk;A
¼c½ ;g fd] oknh ds i{k esa vkSj Áfroknhx.k ds fo:) xzke dksBM+ ds [kkrk la[;k 44 esa Áfrokny la[;k 1 ds uke 'ks"k nknjlh 3 ukyh 10 eqBBh o xzke JhdksV] xaxkukyh] iVVh&dVwyLwa ds [kkrk la[;k 27 esa 'ks"k nknjlh 2 ukyh 8 eqBBh dqy 6 ukyh 2 eqBBh Hkwfe ij oknh dk nknjlh ekfydkuk 1@5 gd ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;A**

3. In fact, the nature of relief, which was modulated there in the said Suit of 1992, was a declaration in relation to the right, which was said to have been claimed to have devolved to the extent of 1/5th share of a disputed property, and a decree of declaration was also sought as against the defendants therein the said suit. Apart from it, a declaration was also sought to the effect that they may be declared as to be the owners of the property in question which was disputed in the suit.

4. The Suit No. 41 of 1992, seeking for a decree of declaration, in relation to the property, which has been dealt with above was decided in favour of the plaintiff i.e. Mr. Ramesh Chandra Thapliyal therein, and it is contended that the said judgment of declaration of title has attained its finality. Later on, it is contended, that there was yet another set of proceeding in relation to the same disputed property i.e. by way of Suit No. 16 of 2009, whereby a sale deed dated 3rd July 2009 was put to challenge. The said sale deed was said to be in relation to the same set of property, which was the subject matter of the earlier Suit no. 41 of 1992, and consequently, it was the subject matter of the present Suit also, being Suit No. 1 of 2017.

5. The plaintiff in Suit No. 1 of 2017, Dinesh Chandra Thapliyal and another Vs. Ramesh Chandra Thapliyal and another, had instituted the Suit, by invoking the provisions of Section 31 to be read with Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963, for t