The principle of res judicata bars claims on matters that have been previously adjudicated in a competent court, ensuring finality in litigation and preventing abuse of judicial resources.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. T.S. 21 of 2019. The petitioner has also made this petition for revision of Order dated 09.12.2021 in Case No. TS 21 of 2019 as per true interpretation of Explanation IV- VI of Section 11 of CPC, 1908.

2. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that one Kshireswar Das got allotment of land measuring 1.41 acres of land under Mouja-Pandavpur, Tehsil - Nehalchandrangar, Revenue Circle -Bishalgarh under Sadar Sub-Division. At Khatian No. 1401 of Mouja - Pandavpur was also created in his favour during his lifetime. He was in absolute physical possession over the entire gamut of land. During 1970, due to massive infiltration of Bangladeshi people during Indo-Pak war, a portion of land measuring 36 satak, i.e. 18 ganda was forcibly dispossessed by one Suresh Chandra Das, the father of Pro-Respondents Nos. 3 to 6. The original allottee as named above on humanitarian ground allowed them to occupy, truly not as a permissive possessor. On the strength of a purported registered Sale Deed No. 1-2279 dated 08.07.1996, one, Mr. Sudhir Chandra Das claiming the ownership of land measuring 36 satak against C.S Plot No 8531/9541(p). Subsequently a khatian of said land was also managed and procured. Thereafter, said Respondent No1 has sold the land on the strength of a Registered Sale Deed No. 1-1628 dated 21.05.2007 in favour of the Respondent No.2 the series of transfer as averred took place so far beyond the knowledge of original allottee/heirs. As it is stated that Pro-Respondent No.2 had instituted a Title Suit No.20 of 2008 before the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bishalgarh for declaration of title and recovery of possession impleading Pro-Respondent No.3 as Defendant. Throughout the original allottee/heirs were not impleaded as necessary party. Said case No. TS 20 of 2008 was decreed and properly executed. After completion of the execution, the Pro-Respondent have intimated the incident in favour of the heirs of original allotee. Original allottee has enquired the matter and came to learn that a great deal of fraud has exercised against them. As a matter of protection of equitable, right, they have preferred the original Title Suit No. 21 of 2019 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. During pendency on the plea of res-judicata of Respondent No.2, Presiding Officer has arrived into an erroneous finding as the suit is not maintainable on the ground of res-judicata and accordingly the plaint was rejected under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC with wrong application or provision of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The finding arrived into by the Presiding Officer is otherwise full of misconception and not tenable in the eye of law. Impugned order dated 09.12.2021 is under challenge in this Revision Petition. Aggrieved by the above narration, the instant revision petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. For ready reference, this court feels it apposite to refer to the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 and the relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:

'The circumstance which is prevailing, in short is that after receiving summons defendant No.2 on 19.03.2021 submitted an application U/S 11 of CPC challenging the maintainability of the suit on the plea that it is barred by the principle res-judicata.

On 15.09.2021 the plaintiff submitted W/O against the said petition.

In her petition defendant No.2 Jharna Acharjee stated that she herself in the year 2008 instituted one Title Suit regarding the same suit property before the court of Ld. Civil Judge Jr. Div, Bishalgarh.

She instituted this suit against one Phan